La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 31:114 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

CHAPTER 7. THE MINERAL LEASE

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 58 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1981–2025 · leading case: Peironnet v. Matador Resources Co., 144 So. 3d 791 (La. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Peironnet v. Matador Resources Co., 144 So. 3d 791 (La. 2013). · cites it 4× “La.Rev.Stat. § 31:114 (“operations on the land burdened by the lease or land unitized therewith sufficient to maintain the lease according to its terms will continue it in force as to the entirety of the land burdened”).”
Stephenson v. Petrohawk Props., L.P., 37 So. 3d 1145 (La. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “R.S. 31:114; Odom v. Union Producing Co., 243 La.”
Olympia Minerals, LLC v. Hs Resources, Inc., 171 So. 3d 878 (La. 2014). · cites it 3× “R.S. 31:114, cmt.). 9 Another essential element for a mineral lease or sublease is that it “must have a term.”
Frank C. Minvielle, L.L.C. v. IMC Global Operations, Inc., 380 F. Supp. 2d 755 (W.D. La. 2004). · cites it 2× “” La.Rev. Stat. Ann. § 31:114. As such, it does not create an unlimited mineral servitude, and Louisiana’s liberative prescription for ten years nonuse therefore does not apply.”
Alford v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 13 F. Supp. 3d 581 (E.D. La. 2014). · cites it 2× “§ 31:80), or a mineral lease (“a contract by which the lessee is granted the right to explore for and produce minerals,” La. Rev Stat. § 31:114). Instead, the agreement merely granted Humble Oil the right to erect facilities on plaintiffs’ property that would allow it to…”
Hoover Tree Farm, L.L.C. v. Goodrich Petroleum Co., 63 So. 3d 159 (La. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “R.S. 31:114; Stephenson v. Petrohawk, supra; Winnon v.”
Succession of Doll v. Doll, 593 So. 2d 1239 (La. 1992). · cites it 2× “La.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 31:114 (West 1989). The mineral lease is a mineral right and, consequently, an incorporeal immovable and a real right.”
Mathews v. Goodrich Oil Co., 471 So. 2d 938 (La. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 5× “Plaintiffs also appear to argue that LSA-R.S. 31:114 is inapplicable since the plaintiffs' property which is subject to the lease is contiguous, rather than noncontiguous.”
Questar Expl. & Prod. Co. v. Woodard Villa, Inc., 123 So. 3d 734 (La. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “R.S. 31:114. This broad principle can be altered contractually by the inclusion in the lease of a Pugh clause.”
Roseberry v. Louisiana Land & Expl. Co., 470 So. 2d 178 (La. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “The defendants argue that the drilling operations between the Alston A-1 Well and the Cook # 1 Well were continuous with no cessation between operations of more than ninety days.”
Grace Ranch, LLC v. BP Am. Prod. Co., 252 So. 3d 546 (La. Ct. App. 2018). “R.S. 31:114, "[a] mineral lease is a contract by which the lessee is granted the right to explore for and produce minerals.”
Rougon v. Chevron, U.S.A. Inc., 575 F. Supp. 95 (M.D. La. 1983). · cites it 2× “R.S. 31:114. It is at this point that the “Pugh clause” appears: The so-called “Pugh clause” .”
Show all 58 citing cases →
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.