Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Richland Police Jury v. Debnam

92 So. 3d 487 (2012)

Case BriefQ&ARelatedOptions
From our private database of 22,600+ case briefs...

Richland Police Jury v. Debnam

Louisiana Court of Appeal

92 So. 3d 487 (2012)

Facts

Cypress Creek flowed through land owned by Donald and Joyce Debnam (defendants). The Debnams built a dam, earthen works, and other structures to block the flow of the creek where it entered their property. These obstructions caused the water that typically flowed through the creek to back up and flood the land that was upstream from the Debnams’ land. The Richland Parish Policy Jury and numerous upstream landowners (plaintiffs) sued the Debnams, seeking an injunction to force them to remove the dam and other obstructions the Debnams had built. At trial, evidence was given that supported a finding that the Debnams’ actions had caused substantial flooding and damages to upstream landowners. The trial court granted a preliminary injunction ordering the Debnams to remove the obstructions to the creek. The Debnams appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Brown, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 519,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 519,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,600 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Questions and answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 519,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 22,600 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership