Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 95-5-10 (2024)
Cutting trees without consent of owner
✓ Justia copy: laws through about 2024 (2025 and 2026 sessions missing)
- (1) If any person shall cut down, deaden, destroy or take away any tree without the consent of the owner of such tree, such person shall pay to the owner of such tree a sum equal to double the fair market value of the tree cut down, deadened, destroyed or taken away, together with the reasonable cost of reforestation, which cost shall not exceed Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($250.00) per acre. The liability for the damages established in this subsection shall be absolute and unconditional and the fact that a person cut down, deadened, destroyed or took away any tree in good faith or by honest mistake shall not be an exception or defense to liability. To establish a right of the owner prima facie to recover under the provisions of this subsection, the owner shall only be required to show that such timber belonged to such owner, and that such timber was cut down, deadened, destroyed or taken away by the defendant, his agents or employees, without the consent of such owner. The remedy provided for in this section shall be the exclusive remedy for the cutting down, deadening, destroying or taking away of trees and shall be in lieu of any other compensatory, punitive or exemplary damages for the cutting down, deadening, destroying or taking away of trees but shall not limit actions or awards for other damages caused by a person.
- (2) If the cutting down, deadening, destruction or taking away of a tree without the consent of the owner of such tree be done willfully, or in reckless disregard for the rights of the owner of such tree, then in addition to the damages provided for in subsection (1) of this section, the person cutting down, deadening, destroying or taking away such tree shall pay to the owner as a penalty Fifty-five Dollars ($55.00) for every tree so cut down, deadened, destroyed or taken away if such tree is seven (7) inches or more in diameter at a height of eighteen (18) inches above ground level, or Ten Dollars ($10.00) for every such tree so cut down, deadened, destroyed or taken away if such tree is less than seven (7) inches in diameter at a height of eighteen (18) inches above ground level, as established by a preponderance of the evidence. To establish the right of the owner prima facie, to recover under the provisions of this subsection, it shall be required of the owner to show that the defendant or his agents or employees, acting under the command or consent of their principal, willfully and knowingly, in conscious disregard for the rights of the owner, cut down, deadened, destroyed or took away such trees.
- (3) All reasonable expert witness fees and attorney's fees shall be assessed as court costs in the discretion of the court.
Laws, 1989, ch. 558, § 1, eff. 7/1/1989.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 54
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1992–2025 · leading case: Stockstill v. Gammill, 943 So. 2d 35 (Miss. 2006).
Stockstill v. Gammill, 943 So. 2d 35 (Miss. 2006). “§ 95-5-29 did not bar Gammill's claim for damages under Miss.Code Ann. § 95-5-10 resulting from the alleged wrongful cutting of timber.”
McCain v. Memphis Hardwood Flooring Co., 725 So. 2d 788 (Miss. 1998). “The McCains' complaint stated that Memphis Hardwood through its agents intentionally and wilfully cut down trees and removed timber from their property without consent in violation of Miss.Code Ann. § 95-5-10 (1994). ¶ 3. A declaratory judgment was rendered by the Circuit Court…”
Patterson v. Holleman, 917 So. 2d 125 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). “Miss.Code Ann. § 95-5-10 (Rev. 2004). Subsection 95-5-10(1) provides: If any person shall cut down, deaden, destroy or take away any tree without the consent of the owner of such tree, *133 such person shall pay to the owner of such tree a sum equal to double the fair market…”
Smith v. Parkerson Lumber, Inc., 888 So. 2d 1197 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). “" Miss.Code Ann. § 95-5-10 (Rev.1994). This portion of the statute has not been fully defined, but in McCain v.”
Miller v. Pannell, 815 So. 2d 1117 (Miss. 2002). “Miss.Code Ann. § 95-5-10, the statute governing timber trespass, was amended in 1989.”
Redhead v. Entergy Mississippi, Inc., 828 So. 2d 801 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). “This issue deals with the fact the trial judge refused to give a jury instruction regarding Miss.Code Ann. § 95-5-10 (Rev.1994) on the matter of damages to the trees.”
Taylor v. Galloway, 105 So. 3d 1160 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012). “Galloway filed a complaint against Walter Taylor for damages under Mississippi *1162 Code Annotated section 95-5-10 (Rev. 2004), commonly referred to as the Mississippi timber trespass statute.”
Camp v. Stokes, 41 So. 3d 697 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). “On August 2, 2007, Stokes filed a complaint in the Chancery Court of Monroe County for trespass and wrongful cutting of timber under Mississippi Code Annotated section 95-5-10 (Rev.2004) against the Camp brothers and Tate, owner of Tate Logging.”
Camp v. Stokes, 41 So. 3d 685 (Miss. 2010). “Buford, 6 the trial court found that, because the plaintiff had failed to present sufficient evidence to present a claim under Section 95-5-10 to the jury, 7 the plaintiff could not seek attorneys’ fees under Section 95-5-10(3).”
Moorehead v. Hudson, 888 So. 2d 459 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). “To establish the right of the owner prima facie, to recover under the provisions of this subsection, it shall be required of the owner to show that the defendant or his agents or employees, acting under the command or consent of their principal, willfully and knowingly, in…”
Teasley v. Buford, 876 So. 2d 1070 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). “As we stated above, Teasley did not meet his burden of proof regarding Mississippi Code Annotated Section 95-5-10. Specifically, Teasley did not offer any proof on how many acres of trees were cut.”
Smiley v. Yllander, 105 So. 3d 1171 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012). “On appeal, Gary and Mary Ann argue the chancellor erred in (1) applying damages set forth in Mississippi Code Annotated section 95-5-10 (Rev.2004), (2) determining a trust arose from the warranty deed, (3) valuing the damages, and (4) finding they misappropriated Jeanette’s…”
Miss. Code Ann. § 95-5-10(1): 19 cases
Stockstill v. Gammill, 943 So. 2d 35 (Miss. 2006). “§ 95-5-29 did not bar Gammill's claim for damages under Miss.Code Ann. § 95-5-10 resulting from the alleged wrongful cutting of timber.”
McCain v. Memphis Hardwood Flooring Co., 725 So. 2d 788 (Miss. 1998). “The McCains' complaint stated that Memphis Hardwood through its agents intentionally and wilfully cut down trees and removed timber from their property without consent in violation of Miss.Code Ann. § 95-5-10 (1994). ¶ 3. A declaratory judgment was rendered by the Circuit Court…”
Flowers v. McCraw, 792 So. 2d 339 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001).
Muirhead v. Vaughn, 878 So. 2d 1028 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004).
Teasley v. Buford, 876 So. 2d 1070 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). “As we stated above, Teasley did not meet his burden of proof regarding Mississippi Code Annotated Section 95-5-10. Specifically, Teasley did not offer any proof on how many acres of trees were cut.”
Miss. Code Ann. § 95-5-10(1)(1989): 1 case
McCain v. Memphis Hardwood Flooring Co., 725 So. 2d 788 (Miss. 1998). “The McCains' complaint stated that Memphis Hardwood through its agents intentionally and wilfully cut down trees and removed timber from their property without consent in violation of Miss.Code Ann. § 95-5-10 (1994). ¶ 3. A declaratory judgment was rendered by the Circuit Court…”
Miss. Code Ann. § 95-5-10(2): 13 cases
Stockstill v. Gammill, 943 So. 2d 35 (Miss. 2006). “§ 95-5-29 did not bar Gammill's claim for damages under Miss.Code Ann. § 95-5-10 resulting from the alleged wrongful cutting of timber.”
Taylor v. Galloway, 105 So. 3d 1160 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012). “Galloway filed a complaint against Walter Taylor for damages under Mississippi *1162 Code Annotated section 95-5-10 (Rev. 2004), commonly referred to as the Mississippi timber trespass statute.”
Patterson v. Holleman, 917 So. 2d 125 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). “Miss.Code Ann. § 95-5-10 (Rev. 2004). Subsection 95-5-10(1) provides: If any person shall cut down, deaden, destroy or take away any tree without the consent of the owner of such tree, *133 such person shall pay to the owner of such tree a sum equal to double the fair market…”
McCain v. Memphis Hardwood Flooring Co., 725 So. 2d 788 (Miss. 1998). “The McCains' complaint stated that Memphis Hardwood through its agents intentionally and wilfully cut down trees and removed timber from their property without consent in violation of Miss.Code Ann. § 95-5-10 (1994). ¶ 3. A declaratory judgment was rendered by the Circuit Court…”
Moorehead v. Hudson, 888 So. 2d 459 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004). “To establish the right of the owner prima facie, to recover under the provisions of this subsection, it shall be required of the owner to show that the defendant or his agents or employees, acting under the command or consent of their principal, willfully and knowingly, in…”
Miss. Code Ann. § 95-5-10(2)(1994): 1 case
Miller v. Pannell, 815 So. 2d 1117 (Miss. 2002). “Miss.Code Ann. § 95-5-10, the statute governing timber trespass, was amended in 1989.”
Miss. Code Ann. § 95-5-10(3): 14 cases
Stockstill v. Gammill, 943 So. 2d 35 (Miss. 2006). “§ 95-5-29 did not bar Gammill's claim for damages under Miss.Code Ann. § 95-5-10 resulting from the alleged wrongful cutting of timber.”
Patterson v. Holleman, 917 So. 2d 125 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005). “Miss.Code Ann. § 95-5-10 (Rev. 2004). Subsection 95-5-10(1) provides: If any person shall cut down, deaden, destroy or take away any tree without the consent of the owner of such tree, *133 such person shall pay to the owner of such tree a sum equal to double the fair market…”
Camp v. Stokes, 41 So. 3d 685 (Miss. 2010). “Buford, 6 the trial court found that, because the plaintiff had failed to present sufficient evidence to present a claim under Section 95-5-10 to the jury, 7 the plaintiff could not seek attorneys’ fees under Section 95-5-10(3).”
McCain v. Memphis Hardwood Flooring Co., 725 So. 2d 788 (Miss. 1998). “The McCains' complaint stated that Memphis Hardwood through its agents intentionally and wilfully cut down trees and removed timber from their property without consent in violation of Miss.Code Ann. § 95-5-10 (1994). ¶ 3. A declaratory judgment was rendered by the Circuit Court…”
Camp v. Stokes, 41 So. 3d 697 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009). “On August 2, 2007, Stokes filed a complaint in the Chancery Court of Monroe County for trespass and wrongful cutting of timber under Mississippi Code Annotated section 95-5-10 (Rev.2004) against the Camp brothers and Tate, owner of Tate Logging.”
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.