Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 3:4278.2 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

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

§4278.2. Sale of undivided timber interest; consent of co-owners; theft

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 15 cases, 1999–2013 · leading case: Allain v. Martco P'ship, 851 So. 2d 974 (La. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Allain v. Martco P'ship, 851 So. 2d 974 (La. 2003). · cites it 22× “The court of appeal reversed *977 the trial court's ruling and found that LSA-R.S. 3:4278.2 was unconstitutional. This Court docketed the case as an appeal to determine whether the statute is unconstitutional.”

McConnico v. Red Oak Timber Co., 847 So. 2d 191 (La. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 9× “R.S. 3:4278.2. R.S. 3:4278.2 provides that a co-owner of land may sell his or her undivided interest in the timber; however, the buyer cannot remove the timber without the consent of at least 80% of the ownership interest in the land.”

Allain v. Martco P'ship, 828 So. 2d 587 (La. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 13× “Martco Partnership (Martco) entered into a sale with the majority owners pursuant to LSA-R.S. 3:4278.2, [3] which permits the sale of timber with the consent of co-owners representing at least 80% ownership interest in the land.”

Sullivan v. Wallace, 51 So. 3d 702 (La. 2010). · cites it 8× “R.S. 3:4278.2 which describes [the] failure to identify and consult all co-owners as presumptive timber theft.”

Alexander v. Dunn, 15 So. 3d 302 (La. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 16× “A co-owner or co-heir of land may execute an act of timber sale whereby he sells his undivided interest in the timber, and any condition imposing a time period within which to remove the timber shall commence from the date of its execution.”

Cole-Gill v. Moore, 862 So. 2d 1197 (La. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 5× “Further, Louisiana R.S. 3:4278.2 (colloquially known as the "80% rule") states, in pertinent part, as follows: B.”

Prewitt v. Rodrigues, 893 So. 2d 927 (La. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 3× “R.S. 3:4278.2 applies to co-owners. As a result, he argues that treble damages should not have been awarded against him.”

Pender v. Elmore, 855 So. 2d 930 (La. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “R.S. 3:4278.2. [2] We have recently held that a violation of La.”

Brinker v. Junction City Wood Co., 744 So. 2d 657 (La. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 23× “R.S. 3:4278.2 unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs, this court transferred this appeal to the supreme court.”

Sullivan v. Wallace, 766 So. 2d 654 (La. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “Thus, the provisions of LSA-R.S. 3:4278.2 are not applicable to the present situation.”

Sullivan v. Wallace, 27 So. 3d 1120 (La. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 5× “R.S. 3:4278.2. In McConnico v. Red Oak, 36,985 (La.”

Hooper v. Wisteria Lakes Subdivision, 135 So. 3d 9 (La. Ct. App. 2013). “The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply to the sale of an undivided timber interest pursuant to R.S, 3:4278.2. B. Whoever willfully and intentionally violates the provisions of Subsection A of this Section shall be liable to the owner, co-owner, co-heir, or legal…”

Show all 15 citing cases →

— La. Rev. Stat. § 3:4278.2(0) — 1 case

Brinker v. Junction City Wood Co., 744 So. 2d 657 (La. Ct. App. 1999). “R.S. 3:4278.2 unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs, this court transferred this appeal to the supreme court.”

— La. Rev. Stat. § 3:4278.2(A) — 5 cases

McConnico v. Red Oak Timber Co., 847 So. 2d 191 (La. Ct. App. 2003). “R.S. 3:4278.2. R.S. 3:4278.2 provides that a co-owner of land may sell his or her undivided interest in the timber; however, the buyer cannot remove the timber without the consent of at least 80% of the ownership interest in the land.”

Cole-Gill v. Moore, 862 So. 2d 1197 (La. Ct. App. 2003). “Further, Louisiana R.S. 3:4278.2 (colloquially known as the "80% rule") states, in pertinent part, as follows: B.”

Sullivan v. Wallace, 766 So. 2d 654 (La. Ct. App. 2000). “Thus, the provisions of LSA-R.S. 3:4278.2 are not applicable to the present situation.”

Willis v. Cenla Timber, Inc., 3 So. 3d 624 (La. Ct. App. 2009).

Robinson v. Nunly, 69 So. 3d 631 (2011).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 3:4278.2(B) — 4 cases

Pender v. Elmore, 855 So. 2d 930 (La. Ct. App. 2003). “R.S. 3:4278.2. [2] We have recently held that a violation of La.”

Sullivan v. Wallace, 766 So. 2d 654 (La. Ct. App. 2000). “Thus, the provisions of LSA-R.S. 3:4278.2 are not applicable to the present situation.”

Alexander v. Dunn, 15 So. 3d 302 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “A co-owner or co-heir of land may execute an act of timber sale whereby he sells his undivided interest in the timber, and any condition imposing a time period within which to remove the timber shall commence from the date of its execution.”

Brinker v. Junction City Wood Co., 744 So. 2d 657 (La. Ct. App. 1999). “R.S. 3:4278.2 unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs, this court transferred this appeal to the supreme court.”

— La. Rev. Stat. § 3:4278.2(C) — 1 case

Brinker v. Junction City Wood Co., 744 So. 2d 657 (La. Ct. App. 1999). “R.S. 3:4278.2 unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs, this court transferred this appeal to the supreme court.”

— La. Rev. Stat. § 3:4278.2(E) — 5 cases

Cole-Gill v. Moore, 862 So. 2d 1197 (La. Ct. App. 2003). “Further, Louisiana R.S. 3:4278.2 (colloquially known as the "80% rule") states, in pertinent part, as follows: B.”

Brinker v. Junction City Wood Co., 744 So. 2d 657 (La. Ct. App. 1999). “R.S. 3:4278.2 unconstitutional as applied to plaintiffs, this court transferred this appeal to the supreme court.”

Willis v. Cenla Timber, Inc., 3 So. 3d 624 (La. Ct. App. 2009).

Robinson v. Nunly, 69 So. 3d 631 (2011).

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.