Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 31:29 (2026)

SUBPART B. INTERRUPTION OF THE PRESCRIPTION

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

SUBPART B. INTERRUPTION OF THE PRESCRIPTION

OF NONUSE

§29. How prescription of nonuse is interrupted

The prescription of nonuse running against a mineral servitude is interrupted by good faith operations for the discovery and production of minerals. By good faith is meant that the operations must be

(1) commenced with reasonable expectation of discovering and producing minerals in paying quantities at a particular point or depth,

(2) continued at the site chosen to that point or depth, and

(3) conducted in such a manner that they constitute a single operation although actual drilling or mining is not conducted at all times.

Acts 1974, No. 50, §29, eff. Jan. 1, 1975.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 19 cases, 1983–2020 · leading case: MJ Farms, Ltd. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 998 So. 2d 16 (La. 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

MJ Farms, Ltd. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 998 So. 2d 16 (La. 2008). · cites it 2× “For the foregoing reasons, we find the district court erred as a matter of law when it found 2006 La. Acts 312 unconstitutional because its retroactive application to this lawsuit filed prior to the effective date of the act impermissibly disturbed M.”

Bass Enter. Prod. Co. v. Kiene, 437 So. 2d 940 (La. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 4× “R.S. 31:29 provides: The prescription of nonuse running against a mineral servitude is interrupted by good faith operations for the discovery and production of minerals.”

Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. v. United States, 365 F.3d 385 (5th Cir. 2004). “R.S. § 31:29. 8 . See Mire v. Hawkins, 249 La.”

Cent. Pines Land Co. v. United States, 274 F.3d 881 (5th Cir. 2001). “2d 591, 595-96 (1966); see also La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 31:29(1). Interruption differs from suspension.”

Wells v. Zadeck, 89 So. 3d 1145 (La. 2012). “R.S. 31:29 The court is making these assumptions to explain the lack of evidence as to the original operator’s bad faith.”

Reeves v. Reeves, 607 So. 2d 626 (La. Ct. App. 1992). “LSA-R.S. 31:29 states what is required to interrupt the running of prescription for nonuse: § 29.”

Dupree v. Oil, Gas & Other Minerals, 731 So. 2d 1067 (La. Ct. App. 1999). “R.S. 31:29. As stated in the Comment to La.”

Producers Oil & Gas Co. v. Nix, 488 So. 2d 1099 (La. Ct. App. 1986). “LSA-R.S. 31:29. It is apparently conceded that Nix's work qualifies as good faith operations sufficient to interrupt prescription.”

Smith v. Andrews, 215 So. 3d 868 (La. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “R.S. 31:29. Prescription of nonuse is interrupted by the production of any mineral covered by the act creating the servitude.”

Ford v. Lester, 139 So. 3d 22 (La. Ct. App. 2014). “R.S. 31:29. *32 Specifically applicable here is La.”

Malone v. Celt Oil, Inc., 485 So. 2d 145 (La. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 5× “Therefore, defendants assert that the operations did not meet the criteria established in LSA-R.S. 31:29 for interruption of prescription.”

Indigo Minerals, LLC v. Pardee Minerals, LLC, 37 So. 3d 1122 (La. Ct. App. 2010). “R.S. 31:29 (Article 29). The Sutton Well and the Fam-cor Well, neither of which reached its permitted depth, both encountered difficulties in drilling which led to the abandonment of the wells as dry holes.”

Show all 19 citing cases →

— La. Rev. Stat. § 31:29(1) — 3 cases

Cent. Pines Land Co. v. United States, 274 F.3d 881 (5th Cir. 2001). “2d 591, 595-96 (1966); see also La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 31:29(1). Interruption differs from suspension.”

Sandefer & Andress, Inc. v. Pruitt, 471 So. 2d 933 (La. Ct. App. 1985).

Malone v. Celt Oil, Inc., 485 So. 2d 145 (La. Ct. App. 1986). “Therefore, defendants assert that the operations did not meet the criteria established in LSA-R.S. 31:29 for interruption of prescription.”

— La. Rev. Stat. § 31:29(A) — 1 case

MJ Farms, Ltd. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 998 So. 2d 16 (La. 2008). “For the foregoing reasons, we find the district court erred as a matter of law when it found 2006 La. Acts 312 unconstitutional because its retroactive application to this lawsuit filed prior to the effective date of the act impermissibly disturbed M.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.