With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Court did not consider the effect of the request notice provision). Moreover, because our approach avoids finding constitutional defects in the statute, prudence dictates our conclusion. See Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 56 S.Ct. 466, 480, 483-84, 80 L.Ed. 688 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring); Universal Amusement Co., Inc. v. Vance, 587 F.2d 159, 166 (5th Cir.1978), aff'd, 445 U.S. 308, 100 S.Ct. 1156, 63 L.Ed.2d 413 (1980). B. We hold that La.Rev.Stat.Ann. 13:3886, as interpreted by the district court, cannot be squared with Mennonite’s allocation of notice burdens. Appellee argues, however, that a recent line of authority establishes the correctness of the district court’s holding. Texaco, Inc. v. Short, 454 U.S. 516, 102 S.Ct. 781, 70 L.Ed.2d 738 (1982) (<HOLDING>); see United States v. Locke, 471 U.S. 84, 105

A: holding that the owner of an equitable interest in property in the form of a land contract can grant a mortgage on that interest under ohio law
B: holding constitutional a statute providing that a mineral interest would lapse to the surface owner if the interest owner either made no use of the interest or failed to file a claim with the state within a twenty year period
C: holding that a mineral interest shorn of the executive right and the right to receive delay rentals remains an interest in the mineral fee
D: holding that the current property owner may not assert a public nuisance claim against the former owner
B.