Todd v. State Department of Natural Resources
Louisiana Supreme Court
474 So. 2d 430 (1985)

- Written by Carolyn Strutton, JD
Facts
Todd, Haynes, and Stevens (timber-estate owners) (plaintiffs) were in possession of, and believed themselves to be the owners of, land that may at one time have been part of the bed of the Mississippi River, prior to a change in the river’s course. The state believed that it owned the land in question as the former bed of the river, and the Louisiana State Department of Natural Resources (the state) (defendant) ordered a halt to Stevens’s timber operations on the land. The timber-estate owners sought to bring a possessory action against the state to assert their right to possession of the land. The trial court allowed them to bring the action against the state and eventually held that the timber-estate owners had a right to possession of the disputed land. The court of appeal upheld the trial court’s judgment. The state appealed to the Louisiana Supreme Court to determine whether a party could bring a possessory action against the state. In its original decision, the supreme court held that a possessory action could be brought against the state but that the state could not be required to assert ownership within the statutorily required 60-day period if the state was the losing party. On rehearing, the supreme court reversed its prior decision and held that a possessory action could not be brought against the state. The supreme court then granted a second rehearing.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Calogero, 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.