Mailhos v. Osbon

4 Citing cases

  1. Hairston v. General Pipeline Const., Inc.

    226 W. Va. 663 (W. Va. 2010)   Cited 8 times
    Listing as an element of a common law cause of action for grave desecration that "the defendant proximately caused, either directly or indirectly, defacement, damage, or other mistreatment of the physical area of the decedent's grave site or common areas of the cemetery in a manner that a reasonable person knows will outrage the sensibilities of others"

    In syllabus point one of England, this Court held: The England Court used a definition of desecration found in Mailhos v. Osbon, 201 So.2d 108 (La.Ct.App. 1967): "A desecration, generally, is defined as a violation of the sanctity of a place or a profanation thereof." 201 So.2d at 110.

  2. Concerned Loved Ones & Lot Owners Ass'n v. Pence

    181 W. Va. 649 (W. Va. 1989)   Cited 9 times
    Discussing mining operations "in or under cemetery grounds" and concluding that "the next of kin of those buried … as well as those who own land for burial in the cemetery, have a cause of action to prevent … the unlawful desecration of such cemetery"

    "A desecration, generally, is defined as a violation of the sanctity of a place or a profanation thereof." Mailhos v. Osbon, 201 So.2d 108, 110 (La.Ct.App. 1967). See also "Desecrate," Black's Law Dictionary 401 (5th ed. 1979).

  3. Vidrine v. Vidrine

    225 So. 2d 691 (La. Ct. App. 1969)   Cited 10 times
    In Vidrine, the Third Circuit determined what the respective rights of the parties were arising from dedication of land to cemetery use.

    If this question is answered in the affirmative, then chaos must surely follow. While the jurisprudence has established that families of those buried, will have a remedy in damages for desecration of the graves (Humphreys v. Bennett Oil Corporation, supra; Thomas v. Mobley, supra; Mailhos v. Osbon, 201 So.2d 108 [La. App. 1st Cir. 1967]), that the remains of the buried cannot be removed (Choppin v. Dauphin, supra), and that the cemetery cannot be reduced in size (Locke v. Lester, supra), the families of those buried in the cemetery would be faced with insurmountable problems if the cemetery literally belongs to the public. For example: Could a family reserve space for the immediate members of a family, or would occupancy be strictly on a first come first served basis? Could anyone bury in the lanes traditionally reserved for passageways? Most cemeteries have burial plots laid out in the same direction. What remedy would exist should someone decide to change this direction? Could a commercial mausoleum be built on some choice site in the cemetery?

  4. Mailhos v. Osbon

    202 So. 2d 34 (La. Ct. App. 1967)

    ELLIS, Judge. For the reasons set forth in the case of Mailhos et al. v. Osbon, d/b/a Osbon Electric Contractors et al., 201 So.2d 108 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1967), the judgment appealed from herein is affirmed at appellant's cost. Affirmed.