Gouaux v. Beaullieu
Citations
- 123 La. 684
- 49 So. 285
- 1909 La. LEXIS 764
Syllabus
<p>1. Taxation (§ 693*) — Sales—Presumption in Favor of.</p> <p>The presumption “omnia rite” applies to tax sales after parties have slept on their rights for many years. Heirs of Corkran v. Arnaudet, 111 La. 563, 35 South. 747; Willis v. Ruddock Cypress Co., 108 La. 255, 32 South. 386; I-Ieirs of Woodfolk v. Witkowski, 120 La. 496, 45 South. 401.</p> <p>[Ed.’ Note. — For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. § 1388; Dec. Dig. § 693.*]</p> <p>2. Taxation (§ 789*) — Tax Proceedings — Presumption oe Regularity.</p> <p>Defendants in actual possession of property under a tax title were not called upon to make explanations in the absence of an actual attack upon the tax proceedings. Defendants under such circumstances were justified in relying upon the presumption of regularity. Plaintiff, under existing circumstances, should have raised a direct issue by pleadings as to the illegality of the assessment and the tax sale.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. § 1565; Dec. Dig. § 789.*]</p> <p>3. Description of Property Assessed.</p> <p>It is not claimed in this ease that there was a misdescription of the property assessed and sold, or that defendants have taken possession of property not intended to be sold, but that there was “uncertainty” in the description of the property sold at tax sale, and under the description of the tax deed it could not be identified. As a fact, the defendants have identified and taken possession of the land, it being the exact quantity of land and the only land owned by the person in whose name it was assessed in the section, township, and range mentioned according to the official maps.</p> <p>4. Taxation (§ 679*) — Sales—Persons Who mat Question.</p> <p>If the property passed to the state under the adjudication to it, the original owner is not concerned in the legality of tax sales subsequently made.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Taxation, Dec. Dig. § 679.*]</p> <p>(Syllabus by the Court.)</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that a method for automatically controlling access to an area using an automated system to identify a person and determine if that person had authorized access was not directed to an abstract idea
- “The asserted claims . . . are directed to using RFID equipment and video to remotely watch over, and limit access to, property.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Nicholls
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.