Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 475 So. 2d 52 - Thomas v. Lewis

475 So. 2d 52 - Thomas v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis

1985

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently May 2019

1 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

601985199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on McDuffie v. Walker · Wells v. Joseph · Brown v. Johnson · 376 So. 2d 991 - Judice-Henry-May Agency, Inc. v. Franklin · 352 F. Supp. 392 - Port Arthur Towing Company v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Under the public records doctrine, third persons need only to look to the public records to determine adverse claims. See McDuffie v. Walker , 125 La. 152 , 51 So. 100 (1909). All persons are held to have constructive notice of the existence and contents of recorded instruments affecting immovable property. Thomas v. Lewis , 475 So.2d 52 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1985) ; Wells v. Joseph , 234 La. 780 , 101 So.2d 667 (1958). The jurisprudence has established some guidelines to determine when recorded instruments place a third party on inquiry as to the title and/or description of the property involved. However, the criteria is not precise. A review of the jurisprudence reveals that the determinations of the sufficiency of notice must be decided on a case by case basis . Watterson v. Magee, 498 So.2d 30 (La.App. 1st Cir.1986). Where a recorded instrument has language that fairly puts a third person on inquiry as to the title and he does not avail himself of the means and facilities at hand to obtain knowledge of the true facts, he is to be considered as having bought at his own peril . Wells v. Joseph, supra ; Brown v. Johnson, 11 So.2d 713 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1942) ; Florida Gas Exploration Company v. Bank of St. Charles and Trust Company, 435 So.2d 535 (La.App. 5th Cir.1983) ; Judice-Henry-May Agency, Inc. v. Franklin, 376 So.2d 991 (La.App. 1st Cir.1979), writ denied, 381 So.2d 508 (La.1980). When one is put on inquiry as to title, availing one's self of "means and facilities at hand" r”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “would be fruitless for even if something did exist it would not be binding on third parties.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.