DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Ceromi v. Harris, 175 So. 462.

28 citing documents.

  • Steven Paul Pesson v. Heather Dieterich La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
  • General Longshore Workers, Inc. v. ILA Local 3000 47 So. 3d 604 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
  • Mitchell v. Clark 448 So. 2d 681 La. 1984
  • Mitchell v. Clark 431 So. 2d 817 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    The trial court recognized that a "long line of cases" , 175 So.
  • Cosey v. Cosey 376 So. 2d 486 La. 1979
  • Wright v. Wright 346 So. 2d 1293 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
  • Fleming v. Romero 342 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
  • Miles v. Miles 328 So. 2d 394 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
  • Gordon v. Culbertson 296 So. 2d 401 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    97 , , the court held: “ * * It is axiomatic under the law and jurisprudence of this state that parol evidence is inadmissible to create a title in one who never owned the property * * * ’ ( , 175 So.
  • Safford v. Ellish 276 So. 2d 884 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
  • Robichaux v. Pool 209 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
  • Little v. Haik 163 So. 2d 558 La. 1964
    611 (1930); Ceromi v. Harris, *133 , 175 So.
  • Beatty v. Vining 147 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1962
    2d 674, 677 , it was stated: "`The sale of a thing belonging to another person is null * * *' (Article 2452 of the Revised Civil Code), and `It is axiomatic under the law and jurisprudence of this state that parol evidence is inadmissible to create a title in one who never owned the property * * *' ( , 175 So.
  • Dipuma v. Dipuma 136 So. 2d 505 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    "The case of Ceromi v. Harris [ ], 175 So.
  • Lewis Chevrolet Co. v. Whitener 122 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
  • Allen v. George 110 So. 2d 587 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    Parol evidence is not admissible to prove that the purchaser of immovables was in reality some other person than the purchaser named in the act of sale, and thus by such testimony to create title in said unnamed purchaser, Articles 2275, 2276, 2440, LSA-Civil Code; , 175 So.
  • Haney v. Dunn 96 So. 2d 243 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    Parol evidence is not admissible to prove that the purchaser of immovables was in reality some other person than the purchaser named in the act of sale, and thus by such testimony to create title in said unnamed purchaser, Articles 2275, 2276, 2440, LSA-Civil Code; , 175 So.
  • Kizer v. Garnier 89 So. 2d 119 La. 1956
  • Serio v. Chadwick 66 So. 2d 9 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1953
  • Myers v. Maricelli 50 So. 2d 312 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
  • Hill v. Selico 49 So. 2d 763 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
  • Lawrence v. Claiborne 41 So. 2d 680 La. 1949
  • Lewis v. Patterson 34 So. 2d 646 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1948
  • Pattison v. Bryan 26 So. 2d 778 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1946
  • Cernich v. Cernich 27 So. 2d 266 La. 1946
    The judgment of the district court sustaining the exception filed in this case is correct, , 175 So.
  • Barnard v. Dealers Finance Co. 9 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1942
  • Harvey v. Richard 7 So. 2d 674 La. 1942
    “The sale of a thing belonging to another person is null * * *” (Article 24'52 of the Revised Civil Code), and “It is axiomatic under the law and jurisprudence of this state that parol evidence is inadmissible to create a title in one who never owned the property * * *” ( , 175 So.
  • Scurto v. Le Blanc 184 So. 567 La. 1938