Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Labarre v. Rateau, 26 So. 2d 279.

40 citing documents.

Huey P. Robinson and Ruthie M. Robinson v. Faith Land Company, LLC La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2022
the public and all the world of the character and extent of his possession, to identify fully the property possessed, and to fix with certainty the boundaries or limits thereof, especially when we consider the type of land between the lines and the 3 nature of the property.” However, So.
Songy v. Songy 738 So. 2d 122 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
The doctrine’s application is controlled by equitable considerations; it cannot be invoked to defeat justice; it will be applied only where the enforcement of the right asserted would work injustice.” , (1946).
Succession of Cosse 608 So. 2d 1092 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1992
Prejean v. Commonwealth for Community Change, Inc. 503 So. 2d 661 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1987
*666 App. 4th Cir.1975), writ refused, , (1946).
Gaudet v. City of Sulphur Municipal Police & Fire Civil Service Board 497 So. 2d 63 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
(1946) was cited in the Molero case wherein the Court reported: “The court in Labarre stated, ‘The laches doctrine addresses itself exclusively to the evidentiary effect of delay.’ (Emphasis supplied.)
Osborne v. Stone 472 So. 2d 223 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
In Bradford v. City of Shreveport, supra , Munson v. Martin, supra , , (1946), Stansbury v. City of Opelousas, supra , Doyal v. Bossier Parish School Board, supra , (La.App.
City of New Orleans v. New Orleans Canal, Inc. 412 So. 2d 975 La. 1982
Schneider v. Delaughter 362 So. 2d 585 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
Labarre *587 v. Rateau, , (1946).
Fontenot v. State, Dept. of Public Safety 341 So. 2d 80 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
925 , (1966); Labarre v. Rateau, [ , ], supra; Shirey v. Campbell, [La.App., ] supra; 30A C.J.S.
Bonura v. Christiana Bros. Poultry Co. of Gretna, Inc. 336 So. 2d 881 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
Kachelmyer v. Ames 335 So. 2d 525 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
State Ex Rel. Guste v. Estate of Himbert 327 So. 2d 698 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Thus, , we pointed out that ` * * * While delay in enforcing a right is an element of laches, such delay does not of itself constitute laches.
Miller v. East Ascension Telephone Company, Inc. 331 So. 2d 182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
William T. Burton Industries, Inc. v. Cook 322 So. 2d 880 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
716 (2d Cir. 1939); Winn v. Calhoun, La.App., (2d Cir. 1957), , (1946).
Molero v. Bass 322 So. 2d 452 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1976
Ryder v. Lacour 322 So. 2d 243 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1976
222 (1940); , (1946); (La.App.
Barnett v. Develle 289 So. 2d 129 La. 1974
Prothro v. City of Natchitoches 265 So. 2d 242 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Pounds v. Yancy 224 So. 2d 1 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
To avoid the prescription, , and Pearlstine v. Mattes, 223 La.
Trahan v. Broussard 206 So. 2d 82 La. 1968
In support of the legal principle enunciated, , ; and Harang v. Golden Ranch Land & Drainage Co., 143 La.
Knight v. Louisiana State Board of Medical Examiners 195 So. 2d 375 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1967
the Supreme Court said: “The doctrine of laches, equitable in character and fully discussed in 30 C.J.S.
Munson v. Martin 192 So. 2d 126 La. 1966
Thus, , we pointed out that “ * * * While delay in enforcing a right is an element of laches, such delay does not of itself constitute laches.
Bolding v. Eason Oil Company 178 So. 2d 246 La. 1965
and authorities there cited.
Successions of Webre 172 So. 2d 285 La. 1965
To avoid the prescription, , and Pearlstine v, *290 Mattes, 223 La.
Successions of Webre 172 So. 2d 285 La. 1965
34 , and Pearlstine v. Mattes, 223 La.
A. B. A. Exploration Gas & Oil Co. v. A. Wilbert's Sons Lumber & Shingle Co. 170 So. 2d 752 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1964
to the effect that in cases involving swamp lands, thirty years acquisitive possession is not shown unless the claimant establishes the existence of boundary lines which can be located by the average person without the use of a compass.
Successions of Webre 164 So. 2d 49 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
260 , ; , ; Litton v. Stephens, 187 La.
Succession of Seals 150 So. 2d 13 La. 1963
648 ; Ranger Land Co., Inc. v. Story, La.App., ; , .
Shirey v. Campbell 151 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1963
Bedingfield v. Watson 147 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1962
Pierce v. Hunter, 202 La.
British American Oil Producing Company v. Grizzaffi 135 So. 2d 559 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
Pierce v. Hunter, 202 La.
Condon v. McCormick 134 So. 2d 619 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
Atlantic Refining Company v. Golson 127 So. 2d 341 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
In the case of LaBarre et al. v. Rateau et al., 1946, , , the court was considering the application of the doctrine of laches as it applied to the plea of estoppel and Justice Hamiter, as organ of the court, had this to say: "The doctrine of laches, equitable in character and fully discussed in 30 C.J.S.
Boyet v. Perryman 123 So. 2d 79 La. 1960
Pierce v. Hunter, 202 La.
Dupre v. Consolidated Underwriters 99 So. 2d 522 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
820 , even though based upon another cause of action, see, e. g., Labarre v. *527 Rateau, , ; cf. Holley v. Butler Furniture Co., 217 La.
Boyet v. Brushwood Methodist Church 98 So. 2d 593 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
Pierce v. Hunter, 202 La.
California Co. v. Price 74 So. 2d 1 La. 1954
Parham v. Maxwell 62 So. 2d 255 La. 1952
Hill v. Richey 59 So. 2d 434 La. 1952
Succession of Cambre 27 So. 2d 296 La. 1946
Louisiana Code of Practice Articles 419 and 420; LaBarre et al. v. Rateau et al., La.Sup., .