## Facts

- Private parties claiming timber rights and possession occupied and used a tract of land near the Mississippi River.
- The State, through the Department of Natural Resources, asserted the tract was part of a former riverbed and therefore state-owned property not subject to acquisitive prescription.
- The State ordered plaintiffs to stop timber-cutting operations, which plaintiffs treated as a disturbance of their peaceful possession.
- Plaintiffs filed a possessory action under Louisiana procedure to protect their possession without litigating title.
- Lower courts ruled for plaintiffs, recognizing the possessory action against the State.
- After an initial supreme court ruling allowing the action (but limiting remedies), a first rehearing reversed and denied any cause of action against the State; a second rehearing reconsidered that reversal.

## Issues

1. Whether Louisiana law permits a possessory action against the State when the State claims ownership of the disputed land.
2. Whether the State’s immunity from acquisitive prescription eliminates the legal utility of protecting private possession through a possessory action.
3. Whether the remedy requiring a losing defendant to file a petitory action within a fixed period may be applied to the State.

## Decision

- The court held that a possessory action may be maintained against the State.
- The court rejected the view that possessory actions exist only to protect possession as it accrues toward acquisitive prescription.
- The court ruled that the State’s immunity from acquisitive prescription does not bar judicial protection of a private party’s factual possession.
- The court held that the statutory provision allowing a successful possessor to force a losing defendant to bring a petitory action within 60 days cannot be constitutionally enforced against the State.
- The court reinstated the availability of possessory relief against the State, while limiting that specific remedial consequence.

## Legal Principles

- A possessory action protects factual possession and preserves public order by requiring disputes over possession to be resolved in court, without requiring proof of ownership.
- The State’s immunity from acquisitive prescription does not negate the existence or protectability of private possession of land the State claims.
- Absent an express exclusion, procedural provisions authorizing possessory actions apply to the State, and sovereign immunity does not bar such an action.
- A court may limit possessory-action remedies against the State where a statute would require the State, as sovereign, to initiate title litigation within a legislatively fixed deadline.

## Conclusion

Louisiana permits private parties to sue the State in a possessory action to protect peaceful possession from disturbance, but the State cannot be compelled under the possessory-action statute to file a petitory action within a prescribed 60-day period.


Todd v. State, Dep’t of Nat. Res., 474 So. 2d 430 (La. 1985)