Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Salerno v. De Lucca, 30 So. 2d 678.

50 citing documents.

Lakewood Property Owners' Ass'n v. Kyle 183 So. 3d 780 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
art. 783; Camelot Citizens Ass’n v. Stevens, supra; , (1947).
Brier Lake, Inc. v. Jones 710 So. 2d 1054 La. 1998
[3] -666 , -680 (1947); Queensborough Land Co. v. Cazeaux, 136 La.
Travasos v. Stoma 672 So. 2d 1070 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
1 Cir.), writ denied, ]; , (1947).
Lakeshore Property Owners v. Delatte 579 So. 2d 1039 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
art. 783; Camelot Citizens Ass'n v. Stevens, supra ; , (1947).
Cashio v. Shoriak 481 So. 2d 1013 La. 1986
Cashio v. Shoriak 472 So. 2d 264 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Oakbrook Civic Ass'n v. Sonnier 470 So. 2d 997 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1985
Hammons v. PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE, ETC. 461 So. 2d 1225 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Vienna Bend Subdivision Homeowners Ass'n v. Manning 459 So. 2d 1345 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
Concord Estates v. Special Children's Found., Inc. 459 So. 2d 1242 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Faust v. White 442 So. 2d 576 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
Nepveaux v. Linwood Realty Co. 435 So. 2d 589 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
In finding the storage to be in violation of a restrictive covenant against commercial usage of the property, we observed: , (1947) the court stated: “It is well established jurisprudence of this state that where restrictions have *592 been inserted in deeds in pursuance of a general plan devised by the ancestor in title to maintain certain building standards and uniform improvements, such as those here under consideration, t
Mitchell v. Killins 408 So. 2d 969 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
Jackson Square Towne House Homes Ass'n v. Mims 393 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
Richard v. Broussard 378 So. 2d 959 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
893 , (1968); , (1947); Yiannopoulos, Real Rights: Limits of Contractual and Testamentary Freedom, 30 La.L.Rev.
Gwatney v. Miller 371 So. 2d 1355 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Murphy v. Marino, La.App., ; Munson v. Berdon, La.App., ; , ; Alfortish v. Wagner, 200 La.
Chapman v. Fisher 370 So. 2d 162 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1979
Mulberry Ass'n v. Richards 369 So. 2d 185 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1979
(1947); Oak Ridge Builders, (La.App.
Deshotels v. Fruge 364 So. 2d 258 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1978
Harper v. Buckelew 355 So. 2d 68 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
In so contending, , (1947) and Lillard v. Jet Homes, Inc.
Hargroder v. City of Eunice 341 So. 2d 463 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
(1947): "It is the well established jurisprudence of this state that where restrictions have been inserted in deeds in pursuance of a general plan devised by the ancestor in title to maintain certain building standards and uniform improvements, such as those here under consideration, they are valid and
Allen v. Forbess 345 So. 2d 950 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1977
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
(1947); Edwards v. Wiseman, 198 La.
Smith v. DeVincent 322 So. 2d 257 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1975
-680, 1947 , our Supreme Court stated: "It is the well established jurisprudence of this state that where restrictions have been inserted in deeds in pursuance of a general plan devised by the ancestor in title to maintain certain building standards and uniform improvements, such as those here under
Mouille v. Henry 321 So. 2d 377 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
Beyt v. Woodvale Place Apartments 297 So. 2d 448 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1974
(1947) the applicable law is stated as follows: "It is the well established jurisprudence of this state that where restrictions have been inserted in deeds in pursuance of a general plan devised by the ancestor in title to maintain certain building standards and uniform improvements, such as those here
Roccaforte v. Lewis 286 So. 2d 490 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1974
317 , (1949); , (1947); Pizzolato v. Cataldo, 202 La.
Scott v. LeCompte 260 So. 2d 345 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
Art. 753, , (1947), which has been followed in many cases since then.
Fuller v. Hill Properties, Inc. 259 So. 2d 398 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1972
Fortson v. Lawrence 254 So. 2d 115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
*117 659 , (1947); (La.App.
Haydel v. Bowen 238 So. 2d 369 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
Bruce v. Simonson Investments, Inc. 207 So. 2d 360 La. 1968
317 , ; , ; Ouachita Home Site Sr Realty Co. v. Collie, 189 La.
Gerde v. Simonson Investments, Inc. 197 So. 2d 754 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1967
841 ; , ; Holloway v. Ransome, 216 La.
Woolley v. Cinquigranna 188 So. 2d 701 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1966
the Supreme Court said: “It is the well established jurisprudence of this state that where restrictions have been inserted in deeds in pursuance of a general plan devised by the ancestor in title to maintain certain building standards and uniform improvements, such as those here under consideration, t
Marquess v. Bamburg 188 So. 2d 721 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1966
(1947); Clark v. Reed, La.App., (2nd Cir. 1960); Guyton v. Yancey, 240 La.
City of Crowley v. Prejean 173 So. 2d 832 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1965
Chexnayder v. Rogers, La.App.Orl., .
Fatjo v. Mayer 170 So. 2d 859 La. 1965
Munson v. Berdon, La.App., ; Lillard v. Jet Homes, Inc., ; Chexnayder v. Rogers, La.App., ; , ; also see 26 C.J.S.
Emonet v. Tomlinson 163 So. 2d 382 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Fatjo v. Mayer 162 So. 2d 356 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1964
Community Builders, Inc. v. Scarborough 149 So. 2d 141 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1963
as follows: "Although these stipulations are stricti juris and every doubt should be resolved in favor of the unencumbered use of the property, whenever differences arise as to the extent or limitation of these restrictions, we must look to the intention of the party encumbering the property from
Cunningham v. Hall 148 So. 2d 808 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1963
holding: “Although these stipulations are stricti juris and every doubt should be resolved in favor of the unencumbered use of the property, whenever differences arise as to the extent or limitation of these restrictions, we must look to the intention of the party encumbering the property from the wor
Olivier v. Berggren 136 So. 2d 325 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
the defendant was enjoined from erecting or maintaining a commercial building on his property in a subdivision subject to the restriction prohibiting commercial use.
In Re Congregation of St. Rita Roman Cath. Church 130 So. 2d 425 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1961
Murphy v. Marino, La.App., ; Munson v. Berdon, La.App., ; ; ; Alfortish v. Wagner, 200 La.
Lillard v. Jet Homes, Inc. 129 So. 2d 109 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1961
See, also, , ; Alfortish v. Wagner, 200 La.
Herzberg v. Harrison 102 So. 2d 554 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
Alfortish v. Wagner, 200 La.
Abate v. Hebert 100 So. 2d 273 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
The only testimony on this subject was by Mr. Andrew P. Fontenot, Chief Sanitarian, with the Parish Health Unit.” , , decided by our Supreme Court with Chief Justice Fournet as its organ, and there is no doubt but that it is the law.
Chexnayder v. Rogers 95 So. 2d 381 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
[4] In reaching this conclusion we have not over-looked the case of Salerno v. De Lucca, 1947, , .
Munson v. Berdon 51 So. 2d 157 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
The law governing this case is well settled by two late cases decided by our Supreme Court, , , and Alfortish v. Wagner, 200 La.
Holloway v. Ransome 43 So. 2d 673 La. 1949
These cases further hold that restrictions of this sort are covenants running with the land; that they are inserted by the original vendor for the benefit of the contiguous landowners whose titles contain similar covenants and that injunction is the proper remedy by which violations of the covenants may be restrained.” , .