DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Marks v. Collier, 43 So. 2d 16.

16 citing documents.

  • Ryder v. Belgard 915 So. 2d 408 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Yiannopoulos, 2 Louisiana Civil Law Treatise § 305, p. 606 (2d Ed.2001) ( , (1949)).
  • Estelle Wiggins Gunter Ryder v. Glenn Edward Belgard, Et Ux. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
    Moreover, the “title need not be valid in order to support a claim of constructive possession.” Yiannopoulos, 2 Louisiana Civil Law Treatise § 305, p. 606 (2d Ed. 2001) ( So.2d 16 (1949)).
  • Armstrong v. Armstrong 493 So. 2d 253 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
    art. 3498; , (1949); see also Bolding v. Eason Oil Company, 248 La.
  • Morgan v. Fuller 441 So. 2d 290 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1983
    Art. 3437; , (1949); Case v. Jeanerette Lumber & Shingle Co., (La.App.
  • Winjum v. Duplantis 393 So. 2d 405 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
  • Plaisance v. Collins 365 So. 2d 608 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1978
    *615 art. 3498; , (1949); see also Bolding v. Eason Oil Company, 248 La.
  • Wagley v. Cross 347 So. 2d 859 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1977
  • Norton v. Addie 337 So. 2d 432 La. 1976
  • Theriot v. LA-TERRE COMPANY 256 So. 2d 710 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1972
  • Barrois v. Zeringue 127 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1961
    n shall have been continuous and uninterrupted, peaceable, public and unequivocal; a clandestine possession would give no right to prescribe; but he who possesses by virtue of a title can not be considered as a clandestine possessor, for his title leads to the supposition that the possession commenced in good faith, and that is sufficient to enable him to plead prescription.” , , the Supreme Court said: “ * * * The possession of a portion of the land extends to the limits or boundaries set out i
  • Daigle v. Pan American Production Co. 108 So. 2d 516 La. 1958
    Jantz v. Long Bell Petroleum Company, 229 La.
  • Lawton v. Anthony 92 So. 2d 747 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1957
    621 , ; , ; Miller v. Albert Hanson Lumber Co., 134 La.
  • Russ v. Stephens 90 So. 2d 501 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1956
    Lenard v. Shell Oil Co., Inc., 211 La.
  • Collier v. Marks 57 So. 2d 43 La. 1952
  • Collier v. Marks 57 So. 2d 43 La. 1952
  • Finch v. Schexnayder 53 So. 2d 484 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1951
    the court said: “The possession required in an action in jactitation is similar to that required in a possessory action.