Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Pan American Production Co. v. Robichaux, 8 So. 2d 635.

27 citing documents.

Garnett v. Battistella 485 So. 2d 929 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Deshotel v. Lachney 465 So. 2d 974 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
Hartsell v. Pipes Auto Shop, Inc. 318 So. 2d 627 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1975
4th Cir. 1963); , (1942).
North Development Company, Inc. v. McClure 276 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1973
Cryer v. M & M Manufacturing Company, Inc. 273 So. 2d 818 La. 1973
Cryer v. M & M Manufacturing Co. 253 So. 2d 69 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
288 (1901); Boehmer Sales Agency v. Russo, La.App., (Orl.La.App.1958); , (1942); Gibert v. Cook, La.App., (4th Cir. 1962) and McCarty v. Anderson, La.App., (1st Cir. 1952).
Humble Oil & Refining Company v. Chappuis 239 So. 2d 400 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
Pan American Production Co. v. Robichaux, et al., , ."
Harvey v. Havard 225 So. 2d 615 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
Robichaux v. Pool 209 So. 2d 77 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1968
588 , ; , ; Gibson v. Pickens, 187 La.
Bailey v. Alice C. Plantation & Refinery Inc. 152 So. 2d 336 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
(1942): “ ‘ * * * Consent in law is more than a mere formal act of the mind.
James v. Buchert 144 So. 2d 435 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
Even if the map in the Burt case had been prepared by a surveyor or civil engineer, such as Mr. Seghers in the instant case, it is apparent from the opinion rendered in the Burt case that the result reached would have been the same since the court cited as a , .
Miller v. Barnes 135 So. 2d 555 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
Merritt v. Hays, 237 La.
McDaniels v. Miller 136 So. 2d 763 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Ford v. Pantallion, La.App., ; , ; Owens v. T. Miller & Sons Building Supply Co., La.App., ; Hester v. Smith, La.App., ; Jones v. Dyer, La.App., ; Rock v. Varuso, La.App., ; Arabie v. Terrebonne, La.App., .
Roberts v. Dutton 130 So. 2d 428 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
444 , ; , ; Owens v. T. Miller & Sons Building Supply Co., La.App.
Wiggs v. Warren Realty Co. 106 So. 2d 478 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
54 , ; , ; Snelling v. Adair, 196 La.
Callahan v. Authement 99 So. 2d 531 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
Snelling v. Adair, supra; , ."
Burt v. Carrier 92 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
wherein the Court said as follows : “The cause or purpose of the establishment of the line was to divide-the two estates.
Koerber v. City of New Orleans 84 So. 2d 454 La. 1955
782 ; , ; Buckley *915 v. Catlett, 203 La.
Ducros v. Couret 82 So. 2d 782 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
588 , ; , ; Gibson v. Pickens, 187 La.
Carpenter v. Skinner 71 So. 2d 133 La. 1954
Arabie v. Terrebonne 69 So. 2d 516 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
672 ; , ; Conrad v. Roussell, La.App., .
McCarty v. Anderson 58 So. 2d 255 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
Martin v. Carroll 59 So. 2d 158 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1952
Long v. Chailan, 187 So.
Sun Oil Co. v. Smith 43 So. 2d 148 La. 1949
Snelling v. Adair et al., supra; , .
Cheramie v. Stiles 41 So. 2d 502 La. 1949
Waterman v. Tidewater Associated Oil Co. 35 So. 2d 225 La. 1947
Title to real estate cannot be acquired by estoppel ( , ), although the doctrine may be employed for the purpose of prohibiting a grantor from denying that an after-acquired title passed by the original conveyance.
Ford v. Pantallion 20 So. 2d 574 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1944
This claim fails, , , in which the court held that owners in common of certain property agreeing to partition equally, and being present when surveyor established the partition line, could not be charged with the effect of a valid consent to an erroneous location of the line made by the surveyor in the absence of a proces v