Cantrelle v. Gaude
Louisiana Court of Appeal
700 So. 2d 523 (1997)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Isidore Fisher owned property in Lafitte, Louisiana, that included and extended on either side of a private road. This roadway was dedicated to the public by Fisher for use as a public road in 1913. In 1955, the parish revoked the public dedication, holding that the road had been abandoned for public use and was no longer needed by the public. The ownership of the roadway therefore reverted to the present owner or owners of the land contiguous to the roadway, which at that time was Fisher’s heirs. In 1982, Fisher’s heirs sold a parcel of land to Carmela Schieffler by a quitclaim deed that included a lot on one side of the roadway and purported to include all of the roadway itself. Schieffler eventually sold this property to her daughter and son-in-law, Patricia and Edward Cantrelle (plaintiffs). The Cantrelles fenced in all of the property except a seven-foot strip of the roadway, which created an alleyway between their property and the adjacent property owned by Danny Gaude and Numa Melancon (defendants). A dispute arose between the neighbors over the ownership and use of the alleyway. The Cantrelles claimed that they owned the entire alleyway and sued Gaude and Melancon, seeking damages and injunctive relief for trespass. The trial court divided the disputed land in half and gave each party three and one-half feet of the alleyway. The Cantrelles appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gothard, 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. 46,500 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.