Buras v. Salinovich
Louisiana Supreme Court
154 La. 495 (1923)
- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Anthony Salinovich and five other hunters (hunters) (defendants) hunted and trapped on open marshland adjacent to the Mississippi River. The marshland was owned by Manuel Oscar Buras (plaintiff). The waters of the marshland were subject to tidal overflow, but the land was not adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico or any bays of the gulf. Buras posted notices forbidding trespassing on his land and employed a person to patrol the land and directly warn any persons trespassing on the land to stop. Buras’s employee directly handed written demands to each of the hunters telling them to cease trespassing on Buras’s land, but the hunters refused to do so. Buras sued the hunters, seeking an injunction forbidding them from going onto his land to hunt or trap. The hunters claimed that they were entitled to hunt and trap on Buras’s land under a number of legal theories. One of the hunters’ legal arguments was that Buras’s land amounted to seashore, which is designated as public land under Louisiana state law, because the land consisted of marshland subject to tidal overflow. The trial court did not find that Buras’s land amounted to seashore but found for the hunters on other grounds and ordered Buras to pay damages to the hunters for lost trapping income and attorneys’ fees. Buras appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Niell, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
