Louisiana Law Review
Search this website…
Search
A leader in comparative and Louisiana law since 1938
Home
About
Current Issue
LLR Lagniappe
Podcast
Symposia
Archive
Masthead
Submissions
The State is No Crook After 30 Years
by Michael Schimpf, Senior Associate
November 19, 2019
I. Introduction
Acquisitive prescription is Louisiana’s method of acquiring ownership whereby a possessor attains
ownership by possessing a thing for a certain period of time.[1] Acquisitive prescription allows a
trespasser, whether in good faith or bad faith,[2] to take ownership over another’s property.
Commentators have jokingly labeled acquisitive prescription as a form of “legalized stealing.”[3]
Acquisitive prescription, however, has benefits. First, it solves complex title disputes without forcing
courts to trace murky titles for generations because it cures any title defects and creates a new title.
[4] Second, because the true owner of the property has neglected the thing by allowing the
acquisitive prescriber to possess it for an extended time, acquisitive prescription transfers title to the
prescriber who values the thing more and has put it to productive use.[5]
For example, assume that “A” corporeally possessed[6] a tract of private land[7] in Rapides Parish
within natural boundaries[8] for over 30 years in good faith because A thought the land belonged to
Subscriptions
Contact
Recent
Articles
A Step Towards Criminal
Justice Reform: Act 122
A Constitutional
Development? The Electric Chair
as a Default Execution Method
Stipulating Vicarious Liability
to Avoid Direct Negligence
Claims: Why This Relic of the
Past Should Be Abandoned in
Louisiana
When Are Defendants
Entitled to an Additional
Medical Examination? The
Correct Interpretation of “Good
Cause” in Louisiana Code of Civil
Procedure Article 1464
Place Your Bets: A New
Means of Economic Activity in
Louisiana through Sports
Gambling
him. This possession was “continuous, uninterrupted, peaceable, public, and unequivocal.”[9] Also, A
spent time and money to improve the land for economic and recreational use. Now, assume that 35
years later, “B” asserts that he is the rightful owner.
If A were a natural person,[10] then A would be entitled to the land because he satisfied the elements
of “unabridged acquisitive prescription” for immovable property:[11] 30 years of possession over a
thing susceptible of acquisitive prescription.[12] What if, however, A were the State of Louisiana?
Would the same result occur? Stated simply: under current Louisiana law, does acquisitive
prescription run in favor of the State? The answer to this question has never been more important
because Louisiana’s water bodies are rapidly changing through natural and man-made forces,
inundating more land at a rate of a “football field an hour.”[13] As Louisiana becomes more
inundated, water bottom ownership becomes murkier, which leads to conflict between Louisiana
sportsmen and private landowners about public access.[14]
II. Crooks v. Department of Natural Resources[15]
The Louisiana Constitution clearly articulates that prescription does not run against the State.[16]
The constitution, however, is silent on whether acquisitive prescription can run in favor of the State.
Recently, in Crooks v. Department of Natural Resources, the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal
answered the question in the negative.[17] The Crooks Court affirmed the trial court’s determination
that Catahoula Lake was not a navigable lake.[18] The court reached this decision despite Catahoula
Lake’s popular status as the largest freshwater lake in Louisiana[19] and a prior court holding that it
was a navigable lake.[20] Instead, the court focused on the status of the water body in 1812, the year
Louisiana entered the Union, because states acquired ownership over all navigable water bodies
within each state’s borders upon entry into the Union.[21] In Louisiana, the general public may freely
access these navigable water bodies, which form part of the public trust.[22] By finding Catahoula
This website uses cookies to ensure site visitors get the best experience on our website. By continuing to use this site,
Lake non-navigable in 1812, the court removed Catahoula Lake as a public thing under Louisiana
you accept our use of cookies and Privacy Statement. To learn more, please visit LSU Privacy Statement.
I agree.
Civil Code article 450, and, consequently, ended the public access that sportsmen had long enjoyed.
Thus, Catahoula Lake was susceptible of private ownership as a private thing.
The Crooks, as representatives of a class of landowners, claimed ownership to Catahoula Lake after
the United States and Louisiana had engaged in acts of possession over the area for 30 years.[23] The
State brought a peremptory exception of prescription, in which it claimed acquisitive prescription.
[24] The majority, however, denied the exception because, in its view, acquisitive prescription does
not run in favor of the State because it would be a taking without compensation.[25]
The result in Crooks was an equitable remedy for the plaintiffs; however, the court failed to consider
the greater impact of its decision on Louisiana property law as a whole. After over 30 years of
benefiting from open access, the court deprived Louisiana sportsmen of public access, and the court
also tied the State’s hands behind its back when dealing with newly created water bodies from
coastal change. The State and boaters have easily mistaken these newly created water bodies as
navigable water bodies, which belong to the State for public use.[26] Under the Crooks majority’s
reasoning, it is better for these new water bodies, which the State thinks in good faith are navigable,
to remain unused for potentially ad infinitum than for the State to take possession and put them to
more productive use. A blanket bar to acquisitive prescription running in favor of the State, however,
greatly restricts the public interest in clearing up the ownership of water bodies that are
questionably navigable.
III. Acquisitive Prescription Runs in Favor of the State
The Crooks holding from the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeal did not settle the issue.[27]
Future courts will have to decide whether to follow the Crooks majority’s reasoning or depart from it.
Under current Louisiana law, courts should depart from the Crooks majority’s analysis for three
reasons: (1) the rationale that Judge Amy gives, in dissent, that there is no prohibition on acquisitive
prescription running in favor of the State; (2) the idea that acquisitive prescription is not an unlawful
taking without compensation; and (3) public policy.
A. No Prohibition Against the State From Acquisitively Prescribing
Louisiana courts have consistently held that political subdivisions cannot benefit from acquisitive
prescription.[28] The Louisiana Supreme Court, however, has stated that “[p]rescription runs in favor
of the state.”[29] The Crooks majority found the case law regarding political subdivisions persuasive
and extended the reasoning to the State, ignoring prior statements from the Louisiana Supreme
Court. The Crooks majority determined that article 6, § 23 of the Louisiana Constitution forbade
political subdivisions from benefitting from acquisitive prescription.[30] The provision gives political
subdivisions the ability to acquire property “by purchase, donation, expropriation, exchange, or
otherwise.”[31] Louisiana courts have read the “or otherwise” language narrowly because § 23’s
neighbor, § 24, allows political subdivisions to acquire servitudes of way by prescription.[32]
Allowing the “or otherwise” language of § 23 to permit acquisitive prescription would make § 24
nugatory and redundant because § 23 would already cover servitudes of way by acquisitive
prescription, so courts have held that acquisitive prescription is implicitly barred from running in
favor of political subdivisions, with § 24 as an exception.[33]
The Crooks majority then determined that article 1, § 4 implicitly barred acquisitive prescription
running in favor of the State because allowing so would be a taking without compensation.[34]
Article 1, § 4(B)(1) is the Louisiana Takings Clause and prevents the State and political subdivisions
from taking or damaging property for a public purpose without paying compensation.[35] The
majority did not provide much analysis in support of using the takings provision, only stating, “this
result seems fair in light of the fact that acquisitive prescription does not run against the State.”[36]
Thus, the Crooks majority determined that the State did not own the land.[37]
The Crooks majority’s reasoning is troubling because it brings constitutional provisions into direct
conflict with each other. Under the majority’s interpretation, if the Takings Clause bars acquisitive
prescription running in favor of the State because it is a taking, then, likewise, it must bar acquisitive
This website uses cookies to ensure site visitors get the best experience on our website. By continuing to use this site,
prescription running in favor of political subdivisions because it is a taking. This interpretation
LSUproperty
Privacy Statement.
youdirectly
accept conflicts
our use ofwith
cookies
and
Statement.
To learnsubdivisions
more, pleasetovisit
article
6, Privacy
§ 24, which
allows political
acquire
through
I agree.
acquisitive prescription in limited situations.[38] A political subdivision, on the one hand, could be
acting under the power of article 6, § 24, but on the other, it could be committing a taking under
article 1, § 4. Instead, the better interpretation is one where the provisions exist harmoniously. Judge
Amy provided this interpretation in dissent.
Judge Amy found no legislative prohibition on acquisitive prescription running in favor of the State.
[39] Judge Amy agreed with the majority and existing jurisprudence that an in pari materia[40] reading
of article 6, §§ 23 and 24 barred political subdivisions from benefitting from acquisitive prescription
with the exception of § 24.[41] However, he found no like provisions restricting the State from
availing itself of acquisitive prescription.[42] He determined that article 1, § 4 does not bar the State;
he traced prior cases in which courts found that “[t]he self-evident truth is that the sovereign can
prescribe against, but prescription cannot run against the State.”[43] Further, Judge Amy argued that
acquisitive prescription is a “reasonable statutory restriction” on property rights.[44] Therefore, he
concluded that the general rule of acquisitive prescription should apply[45] because “[a]ll private
things are susceptible of prescription.”[46]
Judge Amy’s interpretation successfully avoided a conflict between constitutional provisions because
he separated takings law from restrictions on methods of acquiring ownership. Political subdivisions
cannot benefit from acquisitive prescription, with the exception of article 6, § 24, because the
constitution takes away this method of acquiring ownership; however, the jurisprudence at no point
refers to this restriction as a taking.[47] There are no analogous provisions to article 6, §§ 23 and 24
that restrict acquisitive prescription running in favor of the State. Therefore, Judge Amy correctly
noted that there is no legislative restriction under current law, and the Louisiana Takings Clause
does not bar acquisitive prescription running in favor of political subdivisions or the State.
B. Acquisitive Prescription Is Not an Unlawful Taking
On its face, the State acquiring ownership over a private person’s property through acquisitive
prescription seems like a taking without compensation. However, under the United States Supreme
Court’s jurisprudence regarding takings law, the government may still benefit from “background
principles of the State’s law of property[,]”[48] which includes acquisitive prescription.[49] Similarly,
Judge Amy asserted that acquisitive prescription is one of the “reasonable statutory restrictions” to
the right to own property in article 1, § 4(A) of the Louisiana Constitution.[50] Since acquisitive
prescription is a background principle of property law in Louisiana and a reasonable statutory
restriction, the State should not be liable for an unlawful taking. The Louisiana takings framework
only strengthens this argument because it highlights how the property law analysis is separate from
the constitutional law analysis.
In Louisiana, when a landowner sues alleging an unlawful governmental taking, the landowner must
prove three things: (1) a valid property right at the time of the suit; (2) a State taking or damaging of
property; and (3) that the taking or damaging was for a public purpose.[51] The Crooks majority
conflated the first two prongs of the analysis when it barred acquisitive prescription as an unlawful
taking. The majority only found a valid property right after barring acquisitive prescription under the
second prong. The proper place to consider acquisitive prescription, however, is the first prong of the
analysis because the first prong examines property law, and acquisitive prescription is a State
property law rule, not a constitutional takings rule. This structure has been the analysis under an
analogous situation when private land submerges beneath a navigable water body.
A landowner loses to the State any of his land that submerges beneath a bordering navigable water
body by operation of law.[52] The Louisiana Supreme Court found an implied reversion[53] in
present-day article 450 because the State owns “running waters, the waters and bottoms of natural
navigable water bodies, the territorial sea, and seashore.”[54] The Court determined that it would be
untenable to allow private landowners to own land on the brim of a navigable water body where the
landowner could restrict public access.[55] The State is not liable for a taking because the landowner
loses the property right at the time the land submerges.[56] Therefore, at the time of the suit, the
landowner fails to satisfy the first prong of the takings analysis, and a court will not even consider
the second prong.
This website uses cookies to ensure site visitors get the best experience on our website. By continuing to use this site,
you accept our use of cookies and Privacy Statement. To learn more, please visit LSU Privacy Statement.
I agree.
An acquisitive prescription analysis should reach a similar result as the implied reversion analysis
because both are rules of Louisiana property law.[57] Therefore, a court should examine acquisitive
prescription under the first prong and not the second prong. After the State proves acquisitive
prescription, the property transfers to the State retroactive to the initial date of possession.[58]
Thus, the landowner does not have a valid property right at the time of the suit; therefore, there is
no unlawful taking. Although the landowner loses property, implied reversion and acquisitive
prescription serve important public purposes. The former protects public access to navigable water
bodies,[59] and the latter resolves murky property titles.[60]
C. Public Policy Supports the Running of Acquisitive Prescription in
Favor of the State
Louisiana is known as Sportsman’s Paradise because of its vast natural resources. The State’s
valuable water bodies attract tourists from around the world and provide sustenance for Louisiana
residents.[61] Louisiana and its residents generate a substantial portion of revenue each year from
tourism; further, Louisiana fishermen rely on public access to water bodies for their livelihoods.[62]
As enshrined in the Louisiana Constitution, the State has a duty to protect, conserve, and maintain
natural resources, such as public water bodies, for recreational and economic use.[63] This mandate
has become increasingly difficult as Louisiana’s coast is constantly changing because it has become
difficult to differentiate between State-owned navigable water bodies and non-navigable private
water bodies.[64]
As Louisiana land becomes more inundated, sportsmen have access to more areas for recreational
and economic use.[65] Many of these new water bodies, however, are arguably private property even
though the water bodies are possibly navigable.[66] Allowing acquisitive prescription to run in favor
of the State would clarify ownership over some of the questionably navigable water bodies because
ownership would vest in the State after 30 years of possession if the land is private property. In turn,
the State could then allow public access to the water bodies for the benefit of Louisiana sportsmen
and the economy.
Allowing acquisitive prescription to run in favor of the State does not punish an attentive landowner.
Acquisitive prescription only takes the land from an absentee landowner and gives it to the possessor
who values the thing more and has put it to productive use.[67] Commentators, however, have
argued that the government does not have the same attachment to the land as a private person,
thereby weakening the government’s policy reasons for acquisitive prescription.[68] When it comes
to water bodies in Louisiana, however, the State has a constitutional mandate to conserve the natural
resources on behalf of sportsmen, many of whom rely on natural resources to earn a living. Given the
unique situation of Louisiana’s water bodies and the public’s reliance on them, acquisitive
prescription serves as a legitimate method for clearing up murky property titles without significantly
interfering with property rights.
IV. Conclusion
On September 4, 2019, the Louisiana Supreme Court entertained oral arguments for the Crooks case
after granting the State’s writ application in May.[69] It is unlikely, however, that the Court heard any
arguments about whether acquisitive prescription ran in favor of the State because the Court limited
the writ grant to a single issue: whether the inverse condemnation claim prescribed.[70] It is unlikely
that the Court will provide insight into this debate in its upcoming opinion, unless the Court grants a
rehearing and considers the other issues.[71]
Without guidance from the Louisiana Supreme Court or future legislation, other courts must decide
whether to follow the Crooks majority’s reasoning. Louisiana contains a vast amount of water bodies
that are changing because of natural and man-made causes. Therefore, more disputes will likely arise
in the future, similar to Crooks, in which the State, in good faith, believes a water body is public
property. Ultimately, allowing acquisitive prescription to run in favor of the State is a minimal
infringement on property rights because the private property owner has 30 years to challenge the
State or to sue for an inverse condemnation within three years of the State’s intrusion.[72] Future
This website uses cookies to ensure site visitors get the best experience on our website. By continuing to use this site,
courts should allow acquisitive prescription to run in favor of the State because acquisitive
you accept our use of cookies and Privacy Statement. To learn more, please visit LSU Privacy Statement.
I agree.
prescription would clear up title to many uncertain water bodies in Louisiana and prevent the absurd
result of the public losing access to an area after enjoying 30 years of access.
[1] La. Civ. Code art. 3446 (2019) (“Acquisitive prescription is a mode of acquiring ownership or other
real rights by possession for a period of time.”).
[2] In Louisiana, however, being in good faith is a necessary element for a trespasser to have an
abridged acquisitive prescription time period. Id. arts. 3475, 3490 (requiring good faith for
prescription of ten and three years, respectively).
[3] LSU Law Professor John Randall Trahan jokingly referred to acquisitive prescription as such
during the author’s first-year Civil Law Property class.
[4] Boudreaux v. Cummings, 167 So. 3d 559, 570–72 (La. 2015) (Weimer, J., concurring); see also 28 G.
Baudry-Lacantinerie & A. Tissier, Traité Théorique et Pratique du Droit Civil no. 29 (4th ed. 1924), in
5 Civil Law Translations 19 (La. State L. Inst. trans. 1972).
[5] See Boudreaux, 167 So. 3d at 570–72; see also Clifton v. Liner, 552 So. 2d 407, 422 (La. Ct. App. 1st
Cir. 1989) (Shortess, J., concurring); William C. Marra, Adverse Possession, Takings, and the State, 89 U.
Det. Mercy L. Rev. 1, 14 (2011).
[6] La. Civ. Code art. 3425 (“Corporeal possession is the exercise of physical acts of use, detention, or
enjoyment over a thing.”); see id. art. 3476 (“The possessor must have corporeal possession. . . .”).
[7] Private things are susceptible of acquisitive prescription. Id. art. 3485. Public and common things
are not susceptible of acquisitive prescription. La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 3485 cmt. b (2019).
[8] Possessing a thing within a boundary or enclosure is one way of proving actual possession; the
other would be inch by inch possession. La. Civ. Code Ann. art. 3426 cmt. d (2019). Examples of
boundaries or enclosures are tree lines or water bodies. John Randall Trahan, Louisiana Law of
Property: A Précis 57 (2012).
[9] La. Civ. Code art. 3476.
[10] See id. art. 24 (“A natural person is a human being.”).
[11] Professor Trahan uses the terms “abridged” or “unabridged” to distinguish between short-term
and long-term acquisitive prescription. See Trahan, supra note 8, at 104. “Tracts of land, with their
component parts, are immovables.” La. Civ. Code art. 462.
[12] See La. Civ. Code art. 3486. A person still needs possession under article 3476. La. Civ. Code Ann.
art. 3486 cmt. b (2019).
[13] See generally Christopher R. Handy, Filling the Lacuna with Water: HB 391 and Louisiana’s Problem
with Public Access to Water, New Orleans Bar Ass’n (July 6, 2018),
http://www.neworleansbar.org/news/committees/filling-the-lacuna-with-water-hb-391-andlouisiana-s-problem; Jacques Mestayer, Saving Sportsman’s Paradise: Article 450 and Declaring
Ownership of Submerged Lands in Louisiana, 76 La. L. Rev. 889 (2016).
[14] See generally Handy, supra note 13; Mestayer, supra note 13.
[15] Crooks v. Dep’t Nat. Res., 263 So. 3d 540 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018).
[16] La. Const. art. XII, § 13 (“Prescription shall not run against the state in any civil matter. . . .”).
[17] See generally Crooks, 263 So. 3d 540.
This[18]
website
uses cookies to ensure site visitors get the best experience on our website. By continuing to use this site,
Id. at 556–57.
you accept our use of cookies and Privacy Statement. To learn more, please visit LSU Privacy Statement.
I agree.
[19] Kinny Haddox, Catahoula Lake Appeal Heads to Supreme Court, La. Sportsman,
https://www.louisianasportsman.com/hunting/waterfowl-duck-hunting/ducks/catahoula-lakeappeal-heads-to-supreme-court/ (last visited Sept. 9, 2019).
[20] The Third Circuit determined that the issue was not actually litigated in the prior lawsuit, so it
gave the issue no preclusive effect. Crooks, 263 So. 3d at 546.
[21] Id. at 546 n.7. Through the equal footing doctrine, states acquired title to the beds of all
navigable water bodies to hold in each state’s sovereign capacity for the public. See id.
[22] The public trust doctrine mandates the state to own navigable water bodies for the benefit of its
citizens, and states typically cannot alienate land in the public trust. See Phillips Petroleum Co. v.
Mississippi, 484 U.S. 469, 472–73 (1988). Louisiana defines its public trust as “beds and bottoms of
all navigable waters and the banks or shores of bays, arms of the sea, the Gulf of Mexico, and
navigable lakes.” La. Rev. Stat. § 41:1701 (2019).
[23] The United States was responsible for most of the acts of possession. See Crooks, 263 So. 3d at
544–45. As the dissent points out, however, the State arguably proved precarious possession. See id.
at 574–75 (Amy, J., dissenting). Regardless of whether acquisitive prescription could have actually
been proven in Crooks, the case still broadly illustrates the issue of whether acquisitive prescription
runs in favor of the State.
[24] Id. at 554 (majority opinion).
[25] Id. at 556. To focus the issue on acquisitive prescription, the author has omitted discussion about
the issue of whether the plaintiff’s inverse condemnation claim prescribed. Further, the Louisiana
Supreme Court will address that issue in its writ grant. Crooks v. Dep’t Nat. Res., 269 So. 3d. 691 (La.
2019) (limiting the writ grant to that single issue).
[26] See Handy, supra note 13; see also La. Civ. Code art. 450 (2019) (“Public things that belong to the
state are such as running waters, the waters and bottoms of natural navigable water bodies, the
territorial sea, and the seashore.”)
[27] See A.N. Yiannopoulos & Ronald J. Scalise, Jr., Property, in 2 Louisiana Civil Law Treatise § 3:10
n.1 (5th ed. West Update 2019).
[28] See, e.g., Parish of Jefferson v. Bonnabel Props., Inc., 620 So. 2d 1168 (La. 1993).
[29] Crooks, 263 So. 3d at 572 (Amy, J., dissenting) (quoting Ward v. South Coast Corp., 3 So. 2d 689,
692 (La. 1941)). The cases that the dissent cited related to tax sales; however, “no distinction is
observed in the principle of acquiring by prescription.” Id. at 572–73.
[30] Id. at 555 (majority opinion).
[31] Id. (emphasis added).
[32] Id.
[33] Id.
[34] Id. at 556.
[35] See La. Const. art. I, § 4(B)(1) (“Property shall not be taken or damaged by the state or its
political subdivisions except for public purposes and with just compensation paid to the owner or
into court for his benefit.”).
[36] Crooks, 263 So. 3d at 556 n.19.
This website uses cookies to ensure site visitors get the best experience on our website. By continuing to use this site,
Id. atour
567.
you[37]
accept
use of cookies and Privacy Statement. To learn more, please visit LSU Privacy Statement.
I agree.
[38] See La. Const. art. VI, § 24 (“The public, represented by local governmental subdivisions, may
acquire servitudes of way by prescription in the manner prescribed by law.”)
[39] Crooks, 263 So. 3d at 570–72 (Amy, J., dissenting).
[40] In pari materia is a method of reasoning that requires that laws on the same subject matter are
interpreted in light of each other. Alain A. Levasseur, Deciphering a Civil Code: Sources of Law and
Methods of interpretation 94 (2015); see also La. Civ. Code art. 13 (2019) (“Laws on the same subject matter
must be interpreted in reference to each other.”).
[41] Crooks, 263 So. 3d at 570–72 (Amy, J., dissenting).
[42] Id. at 572–73.
[43] Id. (quoting Hous. Auth. of New Orleans v. Banks, 69 So. 2d 5, 8 (La. 1953)).
[44] Id. at 573.
[45] Id.
[46] La. Civ. Code art. 3485 (2019) (“All private things are susceptible of prescription unless
prescription is excluded by legislation.”). Article 3485 does not distinguish who may benefit from
prescription, so the law should not distinguish either without an express legislative statement. The
express constitutional provision prohibiting acquisitive prescription from running against the State
is an example of a legislative exclusion. See La. Const. art. XII, § 13 (“Prescription shall not run
against the state in any civil matter. . . .”).
[47] See, e.g., Parish of Jefferson v. Bonnabel Props., Inc., 620 So. 2d 1168 (La. 1993).
[48] Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1052 (1992).
[49] Marra, supra note 5, at 30.
[50] Crooks, 263 So. 3d at 573.
[51] State v. Chambers Investment Co., 595 So. 2d 598, 603 (La. 1992). An inverse condemnation
claim is when the landowner sues the State alleging an unlawful taking without compensation. See
id.
[52] See generally Miami Corp. v. State, 173 So. 2d 315 (La. 1936).
[53] “Implied reversion” is a term that the author uses to portray the transfer of the property by
operation of law. In this situation, the landowner has an implied contract with the State that if the
land ever submerges beneath a navigable water body, then the landowner loses the property to the
State immediately upon submersion, not by a court order. See generally id.
[54] La. Civ. Code art. 450 (2019).
[55] See generally Miami Corp., 173 So. 2d 315.
[56] See generally id.
[57] Implied reversion is a mixture of property law and obligations. See La. Civ. Code art. 1912 (“A
contract is aleatory when, because of its nature or according to the parties’ intent, the performance
of either party’s obligation, or the extent of the performance, depends on an uncertain event.”).
[58] See Trahan, supra note 8, at 97.
This website uses cookies to ensure site visitors get the best experience on our website. By continuing to use this site,
See generally
Miami
Corp.,
So. 2dStatement.
315.
you[59]
accept
our use of
cookies
and173
Privacy
To learn more, please visit LSU Privacy Statement.
I agree.
[60] See Boudreaux v. Cummings, 167 So. 3d 559, 570–72 (La. 2015) (Weimer, J., concurring)
[61] See Mestayer, supra note 13, at 893–95.
[62] Id.
[63] La. Const. art. IX, § 1; id. art. I, § 27.
[64] See generally Handy, supra note 13.
[65] Id.
[66] Id.
[67] See Boudreaux v. Cummings, 167 So. 3d 559, 570–72 (La. 2015) (Weimer, J., concurring); see also
Marra, supra note 5, at 14.
[68] See Marra, supra note 5, at 4.
[69] Supreme Court of Louisiana Official Docket retrieved from
http://www.lasc.org/docket/dockets/Sept2019.pdf
(last visited Sept. 9, 2019).
[70] Crooks v. Dep’t Nat. Res., 269 So. 3d. 691 (La. 2019). Justice Weimer, however, would have issued
a full grant. Id.
[71] Steven Maxwell, LA Supreme Court Hears Catahoula Lake Issue, KALB,
https://www.kalb.com/content/news/LA-Supreme-Court-hears-Catahoula-Lake-issue559414911.html (last visited Nov. 1, 2019). The interview with Representative Mike Johnson, in the
article, details how the Court has not precluded considering the other issues at a later time, if
necessary.
[72] See Crooks v. Dep’t Nat. Res., 263 So. 3d 540, 573–74 (La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018) (Amy, J.,
dissenting).
← In God We (Are Legally Mandated to) Trust: The
2018-2019 Symposium →
Constitutional Establishment Clause Implications of
Louisiana Revised Statute § 17:262
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Comment
This website uses cookies to ensure site visitors get the best experience on our website. By continuing to use this site,
Name *
you accept our use of cookies and Privacy Statement. To learn more, please visit LSU Privacy Statement.
I agree.
Email *
Website
Post Comment
© 2014 Louisiana Law Review. All rights reserved. Views expressed in the Louisiana Law Review do not necessarily reflect those of the staff,
publications board, or the student body. Any statements and opinions included in these pages are not those of Louisiana State University, the
LSU Law Center, or the LSU Board of Supervisors.
Provide Website Feedback / Accessibility Statement / Privacy Statement
This website uses cookies to ensure site visitors get the best experience on our website. By continuing to use this site,
you accept our use of cookies and Privacy Statement. To learn more, please visit LSU Privacy Statement.
I agree.