DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Holloway Gravel Co. v. McKowen, 9 So. 2d 228.

23 citing documents.

  • Fowler v. T.L. James & Co. 621 So. 2d 638 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
    the Louisiana Supreme Court held a reservation of "mineral, oil and gas rights” did not include sand and gravel deposits.
  • West v. Godair 538 So. 2d 322 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
    The trial court ruled in favor of the Wests, finding: (1) Holloway Gravel Co., , (1942), and Huie Hodge Lumber Co. v. Railroad Lands Co., 151 La.
  • Campagna v. Tenneco Oil Co. 522 So. 2d 159 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
  • Continental Group, Inc. v. Allison 404 So. 2d 428 La. 1981
  • Continental Group, Inc. v. Allison 379 So. 2d 1117 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1979
    (1942), a reservation of all the mineral, oil and gas rights was held not to include sand or gravel or the right to strip-mine.
  • River Rouge Min., Inc. v. Energy Resources of Minn. 331 So. 2d 878 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1976
    The Supreme Court addressed the problem 20 years later in Holloway Gravel Co., , (1942).
  • Bradley v. Jones 297 So. 2d 198 La. 1974
    (1942); Boyd v. Hendrickson, 175 La.
  • Wurzlow v. Placid Oil Company 279 So. 2d 749 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1973
    9 So.2nd 228, 233 (1942), where the Court was concerned *762 with the question of whether a reservation of `minerals' included sand and gravel, is representative of the general rule: `The reservation was prepared by W. Carruth James, acting for himself and his co-owners, and if there is obscurity in the clause so fa
  • Placid Oil Co. v. Young 246 So. 2d 306 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
    425 , (1945); , (1942); Rudman v. Dupuis, 206 La.
  • Reilly-Benton Co. v. Gurtler, Hebert & Co. 212 So. 2d 514 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1968
  • Snow-White Roofs, Inc. v. Boucher 182 So. 2d 846 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1966
  • Fortier v. Soniat 143 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1962
  • Marcann Outdoor, Inc. v. Hargrove 140 So. 2d 815 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
    1061 , ; , ; Bank of Napoleonville v. Knobloch & Rainold, 144 La.
  • Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Texas & New Orleans R. Co. 127 So. 2d 551 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
    Holloway Gravel Co. v. McKowen, 1942, , ; Marcotte v. Coco, 1845, 12 Rob.
  • Blackwell v. Nagy 122 So. 2d 903 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    that: “ ‘It is elementary that in the execution of deeds and like instruments the intention of the parties must be gathered from an inspection of the instruments without the aid of extrinsic evidence, but if the instrument is so ambiguous as to leave the mind in doubt as to what the parties intend
  • Dufrene v. Tracy 94 So. 2d 297 La. 1957
    Holloway Gravel Co., Inc., v. McKowen, , ; Rudman v. Dupuis, 206 La.
  • United Carbon Company v. Mississippi River Fuel Corp. 89 So. 2d 209 La. 1956
  • Griffin v. Bank of Abbeville & Trust Co. 88 So. 2d 231 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    “It is the unbroken rule that authentic sales cannot be attacked,' except by means of a counter letter, or by interrogatories on facts and articles, or by allegation and proof of fraud or error.” , , at page 232, the Supreme Court stated: “It is elementary that in the execution of deeds and like instruments the intention of the parties must be gathered from an inspection of the instruments without the aid of extrinsic evidence, but if the instrument is so ambiguous as to leave the mind in doubt
  • Dupre v. Dupre 72 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
    Revised Civil Code, Article 1956; , ; Marcotte v. Coco, 12 Rob.
  • Di Cristina v. Weiser 42 So. 2d 868 La. 1949
    Holloway Gravel Co., Inc., v. McKowen et al. , ; Rudman v. Dupuis, 206 La.
  • Krauss v. Fry 24 So. 2d 464 La. 1945
    Holloway Gravel Company, Inc., v. McKowen et al., , .
  • Plaquemines Oil & Development Co. v. State 23 So. 2d 171 La. 1945
    Revised Civil Code, Article 1956; , ; Marcotte v. Coco, 12 Rob.
  • Rudman v. Dupuis 20 So. 2d 363 La. 1944
    We appropriately said in Holloway Gravel Company, Inc., v. McKowen et al., , , that: “It :is elementary that in the execution of deeds and like instruments the intention of the parties must be gathered from an inspection of the instruments without the aid of extrinsic evidence, but if the instrument is so ambiguous as to leave the mind in doubt as to what the parties intende