- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 3/28/19 at 7:11 pm to Ron Cheramie
Yes owners were compensated for Toledo bend and from what my dad told me quite well.
Posted on 3/28/19 at 7:53 pm to KemoSabe65
The same. Nothing changed. Read the writ app.
Posted on 3/29/19 at 11:18 am to AlxTgr
Seems to me the State presents a good argument.
Posted on 3/29/19 at 1:26 pm to White Bear
The state does have a good argument. If the judgement ultimately goes in the landowners favor it could open the door for much litigation on other bodies of water in the future. However, there is somewhat a precedent for other “lakes” being privately owned in LA.
Posted on 3/29/19 at 8:34 pm to Splackavellie
quote:
The state does have a good argument. If the judgement ultimately goes in the landowners favor it could open the door for much litigation on other bodies of water in the future. However, there is somewhat a precedent for other “lakes” being privately owned in LA.
Not really, this is a pretty unique set of circumstances involving a navigable waterway, a lake, wetlands, a control structure, mineral royalties, both feds and state, and admission date to the union.
There is almost zero possibility this can be used for precedent elsewhere.
Posted on 3/29/19 at 9:06 pm to cave canem
The precedent I was referring to is there are other “lakes” in LA that are privately owned. However, the difference is those lakes were not designated as such in the plats in the BLM as this one was. This is where the states case has legs.
I wasn’t meaning this case would be a precident moving forward, I was saying the prescident already established is there are other lakes that are privately owned. While not the same set of circumstances, it has happened.
I wasn’t meaning this case would be a precident moving forward, I was saying the prescident already established is there are other lakes that are privately owned. While not the same set of circumstances, it has happened.
Posted on 5/6/19 at 3:28 pm to Splackavellie
State's writ granted for briefing as to prescription.
My take- one of the State's assignments of error in their writ app was that all claims of the two groups of plaintiff were barred by prescription. i.e. the time to file such a claim is/was over
The claims themselves could be very complicated to analyze. To me, this is the easy way out. The court is saying, "We don't have to determine if the thing is a lake or a river-we don't have to second guess the trial court's damage award. We find the claims of all plaintiffs are prescribed-case dismissed at plaintiff's cost"
My take- one of the State's assignments of error in their writ app was that all claims of the two groups of plaintiff were barred by prescription. i.e. the time to file such a claim is/was over
The claims themselves could be very complicated to analyze. To me, this is the easy way out. The court is saying, "We don't have to determine if the thing is a lake or a river-we don't have to second guess the trial court's damage award. We find the claims of all plaintiffs are prescribed-case dismissed at plaintiff's cost"
Posted on 5/6/19 at 4:23 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
The court is saying, "We don't have to determine if the thing is a lake or a river-we don't have to second guess the trial court's damage award. We find the claims of all plaintiffs are prescribed-case dismissed at plaintiff's cost"
Yup
Eta:
quote:
WEIMER, J., would order a full grant and docket.
I see Weimer wanted a shite show.
This post was edited on 5/6/19 at 4:28 pm
Posted on 5/6/19 at 6:40 pm to Mr Wonderful
quote:Yeah
I see Weimer wanted a shite show.
Posted on 5/6/19 at 11:45 pm to AlxTgr
So does that mean they will probably dismiss the case because time ran out and rule in favor of the state?
Posted on 5/7/19 at 7:32 am to Catahoula20LSU
Probably. It just doesn't seem likely that they would go through the trouble of granting the writ for briefing to just affirm. They could have just said, writ denied, if they were going to leave it alone. Not granting the writ for the other assignments of error points to this as well.
Posted on 7/23/19 at 2:45 pm to Catahoula20LSU
Supreme Court argument scheduled for September 4. I have no idea how long a wait we have after that for a decision.
Posted on 7/23/19 at 3:53 pm to AlxTgr
I have not been keeping up with this situation, whats the latest?
My dad is from Jena and I grew up with a camp on Little River and used to hunt the banks out of a floating blind for many years, as well as catching tons of white perch during the summers. The hunting out there has been absolute garbage with the flood gates screwing up the water level, but will be very sad if they ban public hunting on the lake, as I have made some of my best memories out there.
My dad is from Jena and I grew up with a camp on Little River and used to hunt the banks out of a floating blind for many years, as well as catching tons of white perch during the summers. The hunting out there has been absolute garbage with the flood gates screwing up the water level, but will be very sad if they ban public hunting on the lake, as I have made some of my best memories out there.
This post was edited on 7/23/19 at 3:55 pm
Posted on 7/23/19 at 3:57 pm to AlxTgr
shouldn't the title be different.. I mean it wouldn't be off limits to duck hunters.. it just won't be free
Posted on 7/23/19 at 4:06 pm to choupiquesushi
quote:Even that is not clear. That's how bad the original decision was. If the State took it, it can't be private.
shouldn't the title be different.. I mean it wouldn't be off limits to duck hunters.. it just won't be free
It's all going to be reversed anyway.
Posted on 7/23/19 at 4:11 pm to AlxTgr
quote:so it will all stay the same?
It's all going to be reversed anyway.
Posted on 7/24/19 at 7:56 am to choupiquesushi
That's my prediction. I just don't see why they would grant the writ for briefing and argument on that one limited issue (there were multiple assignments of error) only to say ...we affirm both lower Court's holdings in prescription. I mean, it could happen obviously. It just doesn't make sense. If I were on the plaintiff's side, I'd be working like hell on a settlement.
Posted on 9/4/19 at 2:41 pm to AlxTgr
bump for the supreme court today. Has anyone heard anything yet?
Posted on 9/4/19 at 2:49 pm to TigerBait413
Probably a month or so before the opinion is released.
Page 9 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News