DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Edwards v. Wiseman, 3 So. 2d 661.

55 citing documents.

  • Dustin Aucoin & Ashley Aucoin v. Copper Meadows Homeowners Association, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    clauses constitute real rights, not personal to the vendor, and inure to the benefit of all other grantees under a general plan of development, and are real rights running with the land; and that the remedy of the other grantees to prevent a violation of the restrictions by another is by injunction.” Oakbrook Civic Ass’n, ( So.2d 661 (1941)).
  • Aucoin v. Copper Meadows Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. 269 So. 3d 859 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2019
    Oakbrook Civic Ass'n, Inc. v. Sonnier , , 1010 (La.1986) (citing Edwards v. Wiseman , , (1941) ).
  • Lakewood Property Owners' Ass'n v. Kyle 183 So. 3d 780 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    Edwards v. Wiseman, supra [ , (1941)].
  • Cosby v. Holcomb Trucking, Inc. 942 So. 2d 471 La. 2006
    Oakbrook Civic Ass'n, ( , (1941)).
  • Diefenthal v. Longue Vue Foundation 865 So. 2d 863 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2004
  • Webb v. Johnson 671 So. 2d 1120 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
  • Travasos v. Stoma 672 So. 2d 1070 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
    Edwards v. Wiseman, [ , ]....
  • Lakeshore Property Owners v. Delatte 579 So. 2d 1039 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
    161 (1980); , (1941) [building restriction clauses constitute real rights running with the land]; (La.App.
  • Diefenthal v. Longue Vue Management Corp. 561 So. 2d 44 La. 1990
  • Lakeshore Property Owners v. Delatte 524 So. 2d 126 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
    44, 72-73 (1969); , (1941); East Parker Properties, Inc. v. Pelican Realty Company, supra
  • Amis v. Miller 524 So. 2d 71 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1988
  • Ritter v. Fabacher 517 So. 2d 914 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
  • Cashio v. Shoriak 481 So. 2d 1013 La. 1986
  • Oakbrook Civic Ass'n, Inc. v. Sonnier 481 So. 2d 1008 La. 1986
  • Nepveaux v. Linwood Realty Co. 435 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
  • Schwab v. Kelton 405 So. 2d 1239 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
  • Gwatney v. Miller 371 So. 2d 1355 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
  • Lamana-Panno-Fallo, Inc. v. Heebe 352 So. 2d 1303 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1977
    wherein the violation of restrictions of facing the original street by 23 out of 28 corner lots (in a subdivision aggregating *1306 744 lots altogether) was held to constitute an abandonment of the original scheme as to restrictions stipulating as to the facing of residences on those streets.
  • Roy v. Union Bank 347 So. 2d 286 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
  • Hargroder v. City of Eunice 341 So. 2d 463 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
    See Collie and Queensboro cases, supra, , .
  • Allen v. Forbess 345 So. 2d 950 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
    [3] , (1941), violations occurred on 23 of 28 corner lots in the subdivision.
  • East Parker Properties, Inc. v. Pelican Realty Co. 335 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Camelot Citizens Association v. Stevens 329 So. 2d 847 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
  • Lloyd v. Merit Loan Company of Shreveport, Inc. 253 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1971
    Brantley v. Tugwell, supra; , .
  • Gerde v. Simonson Investments, Inc. 197 So. 2d 754 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
    198 , ; , ; Murphy v. Marino, La.App., 1 Cir., ; Munson v. Berdon, La.App., 1 Cir., .” The defense chiefly relied on is that lots 6 and 7 of square 9 are no longer encumbered by the above mentioned restriction limiting the use of the lots to residential purposes.
  • Fisher v. Smith 190 So. 2d 105 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    that “ * * * In the instances where the violations have been so general or substantial without protest as to defeat the objects and purposes of the building restrictions, the courts have held that the restrictions are waived or relinquished and cannot subsequently be enforced.
  • Woolley v. Cinquigranna 188 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
    See Collie and Queensborough cases, supra, , .
  • Marquess v. Bamburg 188 So. 2d 721 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
  • Willis v. New Orleans East Unit of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc. 156 So. 2d 310 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
    pertinent requirement our law has established for the enforceability of subdivision restrictions is that a general plan must be maintained; and only where the object of the plan is “substantially defeated” by failure bo impose or maintain the restrictions on a substantial portion of the lots, scattered throughout the subdivision, have the restrictions been held unenforceable; , (1941); In re Congregation of St.
  • Leonard v. Lavigne 153 So. 2d 544 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
  • Olivier v. Berggren 136 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
    See Edwards v. Wiseman, supra ( , )."
  • In Re Congregation of St. Rita Roman Cath. Church 130 So. 2d 425 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
  • Lillard v. Jet Homes, Inc. 129 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
    Ouachita Home Site & Realty Co. v. Collie, 189 La.
  • Guyton v. Yancey 125 So. 2d 365 La. 1960
  • Clark v. Reed 122 So. 2d 344 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1960
    Quachita Home Site & Realty Co. v. Collie et al., 189 La.
  • Guyton v. Yancey 115 So. 2d 622 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    The Court of Appeal decision is reported in , and was reviewed by the Supreme Court in , .
  • Hernandez v. Harson 111 So. 2d 320 La. 1959
    Brantley v. Tugwell, supra; , .
  • United Mines Workers v. Arkansas Oak Flooring Co. 113 So. 2d 899 La. 1959
    690 ; , and Department of Conservation v. Reardon, 200 La.
  • Herzberg v. Harrison 102 So. 2d 554 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    382, ; Murphy v. Marino, La.App.
  • Abate v. Hebert 100 So. 2d 273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    See Collie and Queensborough cases, supra, , .
  • Harris v. Pierce 73 So. 2d 330 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    Rhodes v. Foti, La.App., ; Roche v. St.
  • Finn v. Murphy 72 So. 2d 358 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    such- restrictions, in contracts between individuals, are not unlawful in this state; that they -are not personal to the vendor but inure to the benefit- of all other grantees under a general plan of development, and are covenants running with the land; , that the remedy of the other grantees is by injunction to prevent a violation of the restrictions by any one of them.” ■ , , is found the following: “The law is clear that building restriction clauses constitute real fights, not personal to the
  • Brantley v. Tugwell 66 So. 2d 800 La. 1953
  • Rabalais v. Hillary Builders 62 So. 2d 846 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1953
    Edwards v. Wiseman, La.App., and Supreme Court, reported , 3 So.2d at page 661, and authorities cited.
  • Oubre v. Stassi 56 So. 2d 598 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
    the Supreme Court said: “The question of whether or not there has been a general waiver or relinquishment of.
  • Rhodes v. Foti 54 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
  • Roche v. St. Romain 51 So. 2d 666 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1951
    the question of whether or not such building restrictions are waived or relinquished when a general violation thereof is permitted.
  • G. F. C. Corp. v. Rollins 50 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1951
  • Sherrouse Realty Co. v. Marine 46 So. 2d 156 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1950
    in support of this contention.
  • Le Blanc v. Palmisano 43 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1949