DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Yuges Realty, Ltd. v. Jefferson Parish Developers, Inc., 18 So. 2d 607.

31 citing documents.

  • Frederic Stelly, Jr. v. Terry Joseph Blanchard La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    Yuges Realty v. 11 Jefferson Parish Developers, So.2d 607 (La.1944).
  • Stelly v. Blanchard 207 So. 3d 557 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2016
    Jefferson Parish Developers
  • Webb v. State Department of Natural Resources 194 So. 3d 41 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
  • Quantum Resources Management, L.L.C. v. Pirate Lake Oil Corp. 170 So. 3d 259 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
    683 (1938)); inadequate description ( , (1944)), and fraud (Wall v. Hamner, 182 La.
  • Quantum Resources Management, L.L.C. v. Pirate Lake Oil Corp. 112 So. 3d 209 La. 2013
    Prior to Mennonite, however, this Court had repeatedly held, in the context of tax sales, “the fact that property is assessed in the wrong name does not prevent the running of the five year peremptive period.” (on reh’g); see Yuges Realty v. Jefferson Parish Developers, Inc., , (1944) (“[F]or the purpose of prescription under the Constitution, it is immaterial whether the assessment was made in the name of the true owner, or in the name of another, or in no name at all.”); Weber’s Heirs v. Marti
  • Seneca Resources Corp. v. Delacroix Corp. 573 So. 2d 1244 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
    683 ); inadequate description ( , ); and fraud ( Wall v. Hamner, 182 La.
  • Succession of Lawless 573 So. 2d 1230 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
    683 ); inadequate description ( , ); and fraud (Wall v. Hamner, 182 La.
  • Gulf States Corp. v. Barberate 486 So. 2d 843 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
    In Yuges Realty v. Jefferson Parish Developers, 2 , (1944), the court said: This court has repeatedly held that, for the purpose of prescription under the *846 Constitution, it is immaterial whether the assessment was made in the name of the true owner, or in the name of another, or in no name at all.
  • Florida v. Roscoe 479 So. 2d 406 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
  • Hubbs v. Canova 401 So. 2d 962 La. 1981
  • Hubbs v. Canova 392 So. 2d 486 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
    (1944) the property was not assessed in the name of the true or record owner and there was also a defect in the description.
  • Meares v. Pioneer Production Corp. 382 So. 2d 1009 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
  • Garrett v. Ernest 369 So. 2d 713 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
    683 ); inadequate description ( , 18 *), and fraud ( Wall v. Hamner, 182 La.
  • Verret v. Norwood 311 So. 2d 86 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
  • Crain v. C. W. Vanderdoes Estate 307 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
    683 ); inadequate description ( , ), and fraud (Wall v. Hamner, 182 La.
  • Gulotta v. Cutshaw 283 So. 2d 482 La. 1973
    See also, Yuges Realty v. Jefferson Parish Developers, Inc., , 18 So.
  • Warner v. Garrett 268 So. 2d 92 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
    683 ); inadequate description ( , ), and fraud (Wall v. Hamner, 182 La.
  • Succession of Leopold Welsch v. Carmadelle 264 So. 2d 341 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1972
    566 ; Yuges Realty, Ltd., v. Jefferson Parish Developers, Inc., , .” (emphasis ours) Further, this Court in Choate, supra, 163 So.2d at page 160 commented: “Insofar as it has application to this case, the lack of an assessment, which is a cause for setting aside a tax sale despite the accrual of the five year per-emptive period, has reference only to the situation whe
  • White v. Phillips Petroleum Company 232 So. 2d 83 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1970
    566 ; Yuges Realty Ltd., v. Jefferson Parish Developers, Inc., , .
  • Harrison v. Moody 178 So. 2d 476 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1965
  • Thompson v. Bradley 142 So. 2d 540 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1962
    The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that ‘for the purpose of prescription under the Constitution, it is immaterial whether the assessment was made in the name of the true owner, or in the name of another, or in no name at all.’ , , and cases cited therein.
  • Newman v. McClure 134 So. 2d 556 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
  • Mills v. Roy O. Martin Lumber Co. 129 So. 2d 78 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    the court held as follows: “This court has repeatedly held that, for the purpose of prescription under the Constitution, it is immaterial whether the assessment was made in the name of the true owner, or in the *82 name of another, or in no name at all.
  • Hamilton v. Cortinas 110 So. 2d 200 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1959
    566 ; Yuges Realty, Ltd. v. Jefferson Parish Developers, Inc., , .” In addition to the cases cited in Knapp v. Jefferson-Plaquemines Drainage Dist., supra, see, also, Gayle v. Slicer, 188 La.
  • Wright v. Cyprian 96 So. 2d 882 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    54 , ; Stevens v. Johnson, La.App., ; , ; Egle v. Constantin, 198 La.
  • Esso Standard Oil Company v. Jordan 92 So. 2d 377 La. 1956
    899 , ; , ; and King v. Moresi, 223 La.
  • Cobbs v. Jackson 85 So. 2d 368 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    566 ; Yuges Realty v. Jefferson Parish Developers, Inc., , .
  • Stevens v. Johnson 81 So. 2d 464 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1955
    54 , ; Yuges Realty, Ltd. v. Jefferson Parish Developers, 1944, , ; Egle v. Constantin, 1941, 198 La.
  • Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Marks 74 So. 2d 36 La. 1954
    54 , ; , ; Egle v. Constantin, 198 La.
  • Knapp v. Jefferson-Plaquemines Drainage Dist. 68 So. 2d 774 La. 1953
    566 ; Yuges Realty, Ltd., v. Jefferson Parish Developers, Inc., , .
  • Weaver Bros. Realty Corporation v. Vines 23 So. 2d 826 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1945
    494 , ; Yuges Realty, Ltd., v. Jefferson Parish Developers, Inc., , , 609.