Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Three Rivers Commons Condominium Ass'n v. Grodner

Louisiana Court of Appeal

Decided May 10, 2017No. 2016 CA 0067Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

CRAIN, J.,

agreeing in part and dissenting in part.

hi agree the trial court correctly overruled the exception of no right of action for the reasons set forth in the per curiam opinion. Regarding the requests for injunc-tive relief, I believe the only issue raised is whether an all-purpose predial servitude of access or passage was created in favor of the properties on the island, as claimed by the TRI owners. I find the TRI owners proved the existence of that servitude. Thus, I agree with reversing the trial court’s judgment and dissolving the injunction that prohibited opening the gate.…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Holmes v. HendricksLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1926
  2. Borden-Aicklen Auto Supply Co. v. Folse Service StationLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1927
  3. Southern Development Co. v. GrecoLouisiana Court of Appeal · 1928
  4. Clovelly Oil Co. v. Midstates Petroleum Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 2013
  5. Concerned Citizens v. Parish of TangipahoaLouisiana Court of Appeal · 2005

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API