Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Casso v. Ascension Realty Co., 196 So. 1.
-
Woodland Borrow Pits, LLC v. Woodland Plantation, LLC
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2025
When, as here, a map is annexed to a deed and referenced in the description in the deed, the annexing of the map results in making “the map as important as part of the description as if it had been actually copied in the deed.” (La.
- Lillian E. Landaiche Roy v. Sheriff Bill Belt La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
- Roy v. Belt 868 So. 2d 209 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
-
Lamson Petroleum Corp. v. Hallwood Petroleum Inc.
824 So. 2d 1194
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
The opinion states that “the plat,” controls in the event of a discrepancy in descnption between the worded description and the plat, ” , 196 So.
-
Lamson Petroleum Co. v. Hallwood Petroleum, Inc.
770 So. 2d 786
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
Casso vs.[v.] Ascension Realty Co., , 196 So.
- Bouligny v. Delatte 550 So. 2d 929 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
- Village Plaza Partnership v. Brandt 501 So. 2d 781 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
- Roy O. Martin Lumber Co. v. Rapides Parish Police Jury 405 So. 2d 1117 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
-
Eves v. Morgan City Fund
252 So. 2d 770
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1971
Where an ambiguity or error exists with regard to the description in a deed, an attached map or survey relating to the ambiguity or error will control, , 196 So.
-
Crane v. Sun Oil Co.
223 So. 2d 14
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1969
716 ; Casso v. Ascension Realty Co., 1940, , 196 So.
- League Central Credit Union v. Montgomery 198 So. 2d 914 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1967
-
James v. Buchert
144 So. 2d 435
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1962
*438 Casso v. Ascension Realty Company et al., 1940, , 196 So.
-
Isacks v. Deutsch
114 So. 2d 746
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959
"`Having reached this conclusion, all acts of possession shown, and admitted to have been exercised by the defendants, cannot avail them under the pleas of prescription filed by them, and they will therefore be overruled.'" , 196 So.
- Dugas v. Talley 109 So. 2d 300 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1959