DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Explore

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Rhodes v. Collier, 41 So. 2d 669.

47 citing documents.

  • Margaret C. Camalo v. Patricia Laura Estrada Courtois La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    at 1034 (alteration in original) ( So.2d 669, 673 (1949)).
  • Margaret C. Camalo v. Patricia Laura Estrada La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
    3 Cir. 1992), writ denied, (alteration in original) ( So.2d 669, 673 (1949)), for the proposition that “In cases where attorneys’ fees are allowed, absence of proof that the fees have actually been paid, or an obligation incurred to pay, defeats recovery.” They argue that the Giglios’ attorney, Mr. Giglio’s father, had admitted to representing the couple free of c
  • Camalo v. Estrada 257 So. 3d 202 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
    3 Cir. 1992), writ denied , (alteration in original) (quoting Rhodes v. Collier , , , 673 (1949) ), for the proposition that "In cases where attorneys' fees are allowed, absence of proof that the fees have actually been paid, or an obligation incurred to pay, defeats recovery."
  • Smith v. Shirley 815 So. 2d 980 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2002
    (1949); Ferrier v. Jordache Ditto's, 94-1317, 94-1318 (La.
  • Cajun Concrete Services, Inc. v. J. Caldarera & Co. 759 So. 2d 237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
  • PELTS & SKINS EXPORT v. State 735 So. 2d 116 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
    (1949) held that attorney's fees are not recoverable in a civil action in the absence of a statute or contract.
  • Bieber-Guillory v. Aswell 723 So. 2d 1145 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
  • Neely v. Turner 707 So. 2d 1298 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
  • Goodrich v. Exxon Co., USA 608 So. 2d 1019 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
    (1949), the Supreme Court held: [I]n cases where attorneys' fees are allowed, absence of proof that the fees have actually been paid, or an obligation incurred to pay, defeats recovery.
  • Armstrong v. Armstrong 493 So. 2d 253 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    662 (1923); Rhodes v. Collier , (1949).
  • Verzwyvelt v. Armstrong-Ratterree, Inc. 463 So. 2d 979 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1985
  • O'Quinn v. Haas Inv. Co., Inc. 458 So. 2d 612 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1984
    App. 4th Cir.1978); , (La.
  • Lloyd v. Hunt Exploration, Inc. 430 So. 2d 298 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    4th Cir. 1978); , (La.App.
  • Crowell Land and Mineral Corp. v. Neal 428 So. 2d 496 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1983
    Applying the above jurisprudence to this case, we conclude the continuous act of enclosing the pasture and garden by the Neals and its maintenance for a number of years prior to the filing of this suit constitute sufficient adverse possession to defeat Crowell's constructive possession of this
  • Roy O. Martin Lumber Co., Inc. v. Lemoine 381 So. 2d 915 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
  • South Central Bell Tel. Co. v. Traigle 367 So. 2d 1143 La. 1978
    1 , (1950); , (1949); Matthews v. Gaubler, La.App., (1951).
  • Gauthreaux v. Gauthreaux 315 So. 2d 402 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1975
  • United Gas Pipe Line Company v. Louisiana Public Service Commission 279 So. 2d 195 La. 1973
  • Lloyd v. Merit Loan Company of Shreveport, Inc. 253 So. 2d 117 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1971
    Efner v. Ketteringham, 217 La.
  • Hongo v. Carlton 241 So. 2d 34 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970
  • Kilchrist v. Conrad 191 So. 2d 705 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1966
  • Miller v. Housing Authority of New Orleans 175 So. 2d 326 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1965
  • Roge v. Kuhlman 136 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1962
  • LaFleur v. Sylvester 135 So. 2d 91 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1961
  • Davis v. Laster 130 So. 2d 479 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    Melancon v. Texas Company, supra; , .
  • Pisciotta v. Du Saules 125 So. 2d 181 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1960
    94 , ; Miller v. Welsh, La.App.1953, , and Rhodes v. Collier, 1949, , .
  • Missouri Pacific Railroad v. Littleton 125 So. 2d 37 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1960
    “So that when the possession of the plaintiff, or the act of disturbing him is denied, no testimony shall be admitted, except as to the fact of the possession, or as to the act of disturbance, and all testimony relative to property shall be rejected.” See, also, , .
  • Bryan v. Ivey 114 So. 2d 88 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    719 , ; , ; Loeblich v. Garnier, La.App.
  • Loeblich v. Garnier 113 So. 2d 95 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
    402 , ; , ; Lee v. Harris, 209 La.
  • Hernandez v. Harson 111 So. 2d 320 La. 1959
    Efner v. Ketteringham, 217 La.
  • Andrus v. White 106 So. 2d 705 La. 1958
    1026 , ; , and cases there cited; see also Scurto v. Le Blanc, 191 La.
  • Hebert v. Chargois 106 So. 2d 15 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    3437, 3498; , ); further, in view of the uncontradicted testimony of an initial corporeal possession by plaintiffs' ancestor in title through the construction of a fence more than 35 years before the suit on the east side of the coulee along what is claimed to be the eastern boundary line of plaintiffs' property (HG5
  • International Paper Co. v. Masters 103 So. 2d 557 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1958
    574 ; Art. 847, LSA-C.C.; Collett v. Otis, La.App.1955, ; Rhodes v. Collier, 1949, , .
  • Graeme Spring & Brake Service, Inc. v. De Felice 98 So. 2d 314 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    and the several cases therein cited.
  • Whitney National Bank of New Orleans v. Munch 91 So. 2d 144 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1956
    the Supreme Court noted the distinction in such situations between an owner by title and one who claims by adverse possession: “ * * * As we have already stated, plaintiffs have proved beyond any doubt that the title of Mrs.. Rhodes extends to the division line of Sections 27, 28 and 29 and Secti
  • Melancon v. Texas Company 89 So. 2d 135 La. 1956
    209 ; , , wherein this Court aptly observed : “It is the well-settled jurisprudence that, * * * in cases where attorneys’ fees are allowed, absence of proof that the fees have actually been paid, or an obligation incurred to pay, defeats recovery.” 215 La.
  • Womack Agencies v. Fisher 86 So. 2d 732 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
  • Chauvin v. La Hitte 85 So. 2d 43 La. 1956
    However, *101 , , which was followed in Brantley v. Tugwell, supra, and also in Efner v. Ketteringham, supra.
  • Daigle v. Great American Indemnity Co. 70 So. 2d 697 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1954
  • Brantley v. Tugwell 66 So. 2d 800 La. 1953
  • Miller v. Welsh 66 So. 2d 25 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1953
    However, in two recent cases decided by the Supreme Court, namely, , , and Efner v. Ketteringham, 217 La.
  • Hill v. Richey 59 So. 2d 434 La. 1952
    460; , ; Richard v. Poitevent & Favre Lbr.
  • G. F. C. Corp. v. Rollins 50 So. 2d 460 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1951
  • Matthews v. Gaubler 49 So. 2d 774 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    1 , ; , ; Winkler v. Ascension Bank & Trust Co., 182 La.
  • Smith v. Atkins 48 So. 2d 101 La. 1950
  • Efner v. Ketteringham 47 So. 2d 331 La. 1950
    This court, , , passed upon the question of attorney fees.
  • Marks v. Collier 43 So. 2d 16 La. 1949
    South Half of Lot 3, Section 53, that part of Lot 7, Section 53, lying East of Buckner’s Bayou; and a strip of land South of Sections 46 and 52, all lying in T. 9 N., R. 10 E.” The portion of the land lying in Sections 46 and 52 is more fully described in the deed, which we have omitted because it is not pertinent in this case; , , in which an opinion was handed down by us on May 31, 1949.