· 6/18/1906

Ramos Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Sanders

Citations

117 La. 615
42 So. 158
1906 La. LEXIS 740

Syllabus

1. Deeds — Construction — Property Conveyed. In a sale of a tract of land, described as having so many arpents front by so many in depth, the side lines will be presumed to run parallel with each other and to form right angles with the front lines, unless there are controlling words or circumstances to the contrary, and this presumption is stronger as to one of the side lines, when it is admitted or proved that the other side line falls, perpendicularly upon, and forms a right angle with, the front line. 2. Adverse Possession — Prescription of Ten Years. To maintain the plea of the prescription of 10 years, acquirendi causa, there must be actual possession, in good faith, during that period, under a title translative of property. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 1, Cent. Dig. Adverse Possession, §§ 65, 66, 161, 387.]. 3. Same — Prescription op Thirty Years. To maintain the plea of the prescription of 30 years, acquirendi causa, there must be corporeal possession in the beginning, which must be continued, or else the possession must be preserved during the entire period by external and public signs announcing such possession and the intention to possess, and this rule applies with equal force to swamp as to other lands. [Ed. Note. — For cases in point, see vol. 1, Cent. Dig. Adverse Possession, §§ 124, 125, 226-231.] (Syllabus by the Court.)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

holding that PII stolen from a reporting agency during a data breach is neither “furnished” nor a “consumer report” under the FCRA
holding that personal identifying information stolen from a reporting agency during a data breach was not a “consumer report” under the FCRA
holding that allegations that the plaintiffs’ private information was compromised in the data breach was legally cognizable under Georgia law
finding that defendant did not “furnish” plaintiffs’ consumer reports where it was hacked by a third party, even though plaintiff alleged that defendant’s protective conduct was “egregious”
noting that plaintiffs need not demonstrate that “other breaches did not cause [their] injuries” because an allegation of harm “is sufficient at the pleading stage to establish that the Data Breach was the proximate cause of this harm”
declining to dismiss MITPA claim because private citizens may enforce the notification statue through other laws

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Monroe

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced 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.