DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Achee v. Caillouet, 1 So. 2d 530.

21 citing documents.

  • Nelson v. Young 234 So. 2d 54 La. 1970
    I disagree with the majority, being of the opinion that the issue presented here has been correctly disposed of in the following cases: , 1 So.
  • LeBleu v. LeBleu 206 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1967
  • Williams v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company 193 So. 2d 78 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
    868 , -209 (1952), the Supreme Court made this observation: " , , it was contended that a mineral lease, for a primary term extending beyond the date when prescription would have accrued on a mineral servitude affecting the property, signed by both the landowner and the mineral owner, was a joint lease; and as such it constituted an acknowledgment on the part of the
  • Armour v. Smith 170 So. 2d 347 La. 1964
    518 ; , ; Robinson v. Horton, 197 La.
  • Armour v. Smith 158 So. 2d 446 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
  • Namie v. Namie 134 So. 2d 572 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
    However, this holding was carefully clarified and explained by the opinion of the Supreme Court, on rehearing, in Achee, et al. v. Caillouet, et al., , , which stated: "In the Bremer case, explaining the theory on which the ruling in the Mulhern case was based, we said that Mulhern's joining the owners of the servitude in the execution of the oil and gas lease not only evidenced his intention of acknowledging their rights, but evidenced also his `c
  • Roberts v. Cooper 127 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
  • Nolen v. Bennett 119 So. 2d 636 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
    518 ; Achee v. Caillouet, 1941, , ; White v. Hodges, 1942, 201 La.
  • Crown Central Petroleum Corporation v. Barousse 117 So. 2d 575 La. 1960
    518 ; , ; Baker v. Wilder, 204 La.
  • Hinchee v. Long Bell Petroleum Co. 103 So. 2d 84 La. 1958
    759 , ; , ; Hightower v. Maritzky, 194 La.
  • Elkins v. Roseberry 96 So. 2d 41 La. 1957
    931 , ; Achee v. Caillouet, supra [ , ] ; White v. Hodges, 201 La.
  • Delta Refining Co. v. Bankhead 73 So. 2d 302 La. 1954
    There was, therefore, nothing in the lease to indicate that Bremer intended to interrupt prescription.” , , this Court stated: “ * * * It is utterly inconsistent and irreconcilable with the firmly established rule that a bare acknowledgment by the landowner of the existence of the mineral rights of another in his land does not interrupt the running of prescription in the sense that the prescription begi
  • Barnsdall Oil Co. v. Miller 69 So. 2d 21 La. 1953
  • Smith v. Holt 67 So. 2d 93 La. 1953
    518 , , , Baker v. Wilder, 204 La.
  • Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co. v. Thompson 64 So. 2d 202 La. 1953
    it was contended', that a mineral lease, for a primary term, extending beyond the date when prescription would have accrued on a mineral servitude affecting the property, signed by both the landowner and the mineral owner, was a joint lease; and as such it constituted an acknowledgment on the part of t
  • Wise v. Watkins 62 So. 2d 653 La. 1952
    518 ; , ; Spears v. Nesbitt, 197 La.
  • Placid Oil Co. v. George 49 So. 2d 500 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1950
    in which it was-held that even the joining of the land owner with the mineral owner in a lease contract did not constitute an interruption or prescription unless the same was clearly intended by the parties.
  • Liberty Farms, Inc. v. Miller 45 So. 2d 610 La. 1950
    521 , we observed: “In order for an acknowledgment by a landowner that his land is subject to certain mineral rights in favor of a person named in the acknowledgment to have the effect of interrupting the prescription by which such rights are extinguished the intention that the acknowledgment shall have that effect must be expressed in unmistakable terms.” See also Ahee v. Caillouet, 197 La, 313, and Baker v. Wilder, 204 La.
  • Baker v. Wilder 16 So. 2d 346 La. 1943
    518 ; , (on rehearing), and Spears v. Nesbitt, 197 La.
  • White v. Hodges 9 So. 2d 433 La. 1942
    the Court, in its opinion on rehearing, said: “ * * * It is utterly inconsistent and irreconcilable with the firmly established rule that a bare acknowledgment by the landowner.of the existence of the mineral rights of another in his land does not interrupt the running of prescription in the sense
  • Spears v. Nesbitt 2 So. 2d 650 La. 1941
    cle 3520 of the Revised Civil Code, a careful study and analysis of the Mulhern case and the cases decided by this court dealing with joint leases will disclose that the court reached the right conclusion but based the same on the wrong principles of law and that the reason for the holding in that case has, in effect, , handed down March 31, 1941.