From our private database of 22,600+ case briefs...
Stuckey v. Collins
Louisiana Court of Appeal
464 So.2d 346 (1985)
Facts
Henry Willis divided land that he owned into lots. He sold a landlocked lot to Robert Stuckey (plaintiff). Because Stuckey’s parcel was enclosed, Willis granted Stuckey a servitude of passage over land Willis still owned to access a public road. Willis constructed the access road between Stuckey’s lot and the public road, and Stuckey used it to access his land. No other points of access were realistically possible from Stuckey’s land across Willis’s land to the public road because the rest of Willis’s land was swampy. This access driveway, however, crossed a narrow strip of land directly abutting the highway that belonged not to Willis but to Richard Collins (defendant), before crossing onto Willis’s land and eventually to Stuckey’s land. Collins was aware of this and initially did not protest this use of his land. Collins later installed a barrier with a lock at this access point but gave Stuckey a key and allowed Stuckey to keep accessing his land over this route. Stuckey became frustrated with the barrier and removed it, but Collins replaced it. Stuckey filed suit, seeking a servitude of passage over Collins’s land at this access point. The trial court granted the right of passage to Stuckey. Collins appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hall, J.)
What to do next…
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.
