Bruneau v. Edwards
| Decision Date | 20 April 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 87,87 |
| Citation | 517 So.2d 818 |
| Parties | Representative Charles Emile BRUNEAU, Jr., Representative Carl N. Crane, Representative John J. Hainkel, Jr., Representative Charles D. Lancaster, Jr., Representative Edward C. Scogin, Representative Quentin D. Dastuque, Representative Terry W. Gee, Representative Jimmy N. Dimos, Senator Ron Landry, Senator Kenneth E. Osterberger, Louisiana Asphalt Pavement Association, Inc., the Association of General Contractors of Louisiana, Inc., Louisiana Association of General Contractors Highway, Heavy, Municipal-Utilities Chapter, Inc., Louisiana Motor Transport Association, Inc., Louisiana Highway Users Federation, Inc. and Louisiana Good Roads and Transportation Association, Inc. v. Edwin W. EDWARDS, Governor of the State of Louisiana, and Thomas D. Burbank, Jr., Treasurer of the State of Louisiana and the State of Louisiana. CA 0235. 517 So.2d 818 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
A. Edward Hardin, Rober W. Fenet, James B. Doyle, Kathleen Kay and J. Mac Morgan, of Woodley, Barnett, Williams, Finet, Palmer & Pitre, Baton Rouge, for plaintiffs-appellants Representative Charles
Emile Bruneau, Jr., Representative Carl N. Crane, Representative John N. Hainkel, Jr., Representative Charles D. Lancaster, Jr., Representative Edward Scogin, Representative Quentin D. Dastuque, Representative Terry W. Gee, Representative Jimmy N. Dimos, Senator Ron Landry, Senator Kenneth E. Osterberger, Louisiana Asphalt Pavement Association, Inc., the Association of General Contractors of Louisiana, Inc., Louisiana Association of General Contractors-Highway, Heavy Municipal-Utilities Chapter, Inc., Louisiana Motor Transport Association, Inc., Louisiana Highway Users Federation, Inc. and Louisiana Good Roads and Transportation Association, Inc.
Charles W. Roberts, Charles L. Patin, T. Michael Landrum and David G. Sanders, Baton Rouge, for defendants-appellees Edwin W. Edwards, Governor of the State of Louisiana, and Thomas D. Burbank, Jr., Treasurer of the State of Louisiana and the State of Louisiana.
Before LOTTINGER, SHORTESS, CARTER, CRAIN and LeBLANC, JJ.
This is an action for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief regarding certain legislative acts affecting the state's general fund as well as certain dedicated funds.
Two distinct groups of plaintiffs instituted the present action. The first group is comprised of senators and representatives of the Louisiana Legislature who sued in their capacity as residents, voters, and taxpayers of the State of Louisiana and as duly elected members of the Legislature during the First Extraordinary Session of 1986. 1 The second group is comprised of various associations of contractors, construction companies, and trade groups 2 which allegedly derive benefits, monetary or otherwise, from the dedicated funds.
Plaintiffs filed the instant suit against Edwin W. Edwards, Governor of the State of Louisiana, and Thomas D. Burbank, Jr., Treasurer for the State of Louisiana. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment with respect to the constitutionality of certain legislation passed by the Louisiana Legislature during the First Extraordinary Session of 1986 and sought to enjoin Edwards and Burbank from withholding appropriations in the Capital Outlay Bill of 1986 (Act 1044 of 1986 Regular Session) and the General Appropriations Bill of 1986 (Act 17 of 1986 Regular Session) and from transferring dedicated funds to the state general fund. Plaintiffs allege that Acts 10 and 38 of the First Extraordinary Session of 1986 are unconstitutional by their violation of provisions of the La. Const. arts. II, Sec. 2, III, Sec. 16, Sec. 20, and VII, Sec. 2. (For the full text of Acts 10 and 38 of the First Extraordinary Session of 1986, see the Appendix to this opinion.)
Defendants filed various exceptions raising objections of unauthorized use of summary process, no right of action, and no cause of action. By way of exception, defendants also questioned whether plaintiffs were entitled to injunctive relief under La. Code Civ.P. art. 3601 and whether the court had the authority to decide the case as it presented nonjusticiable questions.
The matter came before the trial court for a hearing on the rule to show cause why the preliminary injunction should not issue and on the exceptions. The trial court maintained defendants' exceptions raising objections of no cause of action and no right of action and dismissed plaintiffs' suit. The trial court also determined that plaintiffs were not entitled to a preliminary injunction.
Plaintiffs appealed and applied for supervisory writs to this court but were denied. Thereafter, on plaintiffs' motion, an expedited hearing was granted.
On appeal, plaintiffs raise the following issues:
I. Whether Act 10 and Act 38 of the 1986 Extraordinary Session of the Louisiana Legislature are constitutional?
II. Whether plaintiffs have a right of action in the subject matter of this litigation?
III. Whether the petition filed by plaintiffs states a cause of action?
IV. Whether the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiffs' claims "on the merits?"
Defendants answer the appeal, reurging the exceptions raised in the trial court, which the trial court omitted and, for the first time, on appeal, allege that plaintiffs failed to join the Louisiana Legislature as an indispensable party. La. Code Civ.P. art. 641.
Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in maintaining defendants' exception raising the objection of no right of action. Plaintiffs reason that, as taxpayers, voters, and residents of the State of Louisiana and as associations of corporations with a more particularized interest, they have the right of action to challenge as unconstitutional certain acts of the 1986 Extraordinary Session, citing Carso v. Board of Liquidation of State Debt, 205 La. 368, 17 So.2d 358 (1944).
Defendants contend that plaintiffs have failed to allege any facts which show a special or peculiar interest in their cause of action which is separate and distinct from that of the public at large. Defendants reason that plaintiffs failed to meet the test enunciated in Louisiana Hotel-Motel Association, Inc. v. Parish of East Baton Rouge, 385 So.2d 1193 (La.1980) and League of Women Voters of New Orleans v. City of New Orleans, 381 So.2d 441 (La.1980) and, as such, do not have a right of action to institute this litigation.
The trial court found that Carso was inapplicable to the instant case and that the appropriate test is contained in Louisiana Hotel-Motel and League of Women Voters. The trial court then determined that the plaintiffs could not satisfy the test because plaintiffs' petition failed to allege any special or peculiar interest different from that of the public at large. Accordingly, the trial court found that plaintiffs did not have a right of action to institute the suit.
The objection of no right of action relates primarily to whether the particular plaintiff is included, as a matter of law, within the general class in whose favor the law grants the cause of action. Budd Construction Company, Inc. v. City of Alexandria, 401 So.2d 1070 (La.App. 3rd Cir.1981), writ denied, 404 So.2d 1262 (La.1981); Curry v. Iberville Parish Sheriff's Office, 378 So.2d 159 (La.App. 1st Cir.1979).
Under La. Code of Civ.P. art. 681, a plaintiff must have a real and actual interest in the action asserted. In order to have standing, a plaintiff must show an interest in the litigation peculiar to him personally and separate and distinct from that of the general public. League of Women Voters; Schaefer v. Treen, 444 So.2d 188 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983), writ denied, 446 So.2d 315 (La.1984). "Without a showing of some special interest in the performance sought of a public board, officer or commission which is separate and distinct from the interest of the public at large, plaintiff will not be permitted to proceed." League of Women Voters at 447; State ex rel. Schoeffner v. Dowling, 158 La. 706, 104 So. 624 (1925); Bussie v. Long, 286 So.2d 689 (La.App. 1st Cir.1973), writ refused, 288 So.2d 354 (La.1974). "A public right or duty may not be compelled or enforced by a private citizen without a showing of a personal grievance or interest in the outcome." League of Women Voters at 446.
However, in Carso, the Louisiana Supreme Court held that a taxpayer, as such, has a right of action to enjoin a state official or agency from disposing of public funds under authority of a statute which the taxpayer contends is unconstitutional. The court in Carso did not explicitly state that a taxpayer is required to have a special or peculiar interest in the cause of action when the constitutionality of a statute is at issue. The jurisprudence, however, requires the plaintiff show something more than a mere interest as a member of the public at large to justify his standing to challenge the constitutionality of a statute.
Thus, the issue is whether the allegations in plaintiffs' original and first supplemental and amending petitions are sufficient to give them a right of action to challenge the constitutionality of Acts 10 and 38 of the First Extraordinary Session of 1986.
In the original petition, the ten legislators who filed suit alleged their interest in the instant litigation as follows:
Representative Charles Emile Bruneau, Jr., Representative Carl N. Crane, Representative John J. Hainkel, Jr., Representative Charles D. Lancaster, Jr., Representative Edward C. Scogin, Representative Quentin D. Dastuque, Representative Jimmy N. Dimos, Representative Terry W. Gee, Senator Ron Landry, and Senator Kenneth E. Osterberger are residents, voters and taxpayers of the State of Louisiana, duly elected members of the Legislature of the State of Louisiana and were members of that body during the First Extraordinary Session of the Legislature of 1986.
Plaintiffs' petition further alleges that the challenged provisions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Okpalobi v. Foster
... ... traditional standing principles in deciding abortion cases." See Margaret S. v. Edwards, 794 F.2d 994, 997 (5th Cir. 1986) (Higginbotham, J.). In Doe v. Bolton, the Supreme Court found that physicians presented a justiciable controversy ... See Vallo v. Gayle Oil Co., Inc., 646 So.2d 859 (La. 1994) (citing La. Civ. Code art. 1880; La. Rev. Stat. Ann. 49:257(B)); Bruneau v. Edwards, 517 So.2d 818, 824 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1987) ... 4 ... Medical authorities neither fully understand how IUDs work nor universally accept ... ...
-
Ralph v. City of New Orleans
... ... Richardson v. Reeves, 600 So.2d 138, 140 (La.App. 2nd Cir.1992), citing Bruneau v. Edwards, 517 So.2d 818, 821 (La.App. 1st Cir.1987) ... Plaintiffs assert they have standing to challenge the constitutionality ... ...
-
Richardson v. Reeves
... ... , a plaintiff must show an interest in the litigation peculiar to him personally and separate and distinct from that of the general public." Bruneau v. Edwards, 517 So.2d 818, 821 (La.App. 1st Cir.1987), citing League of Women Voters of New Orleans v. City of New Orleans, 381 So.2d 441 (La.1980); ... ...
-
McPherson v. Foster
... ... See Bruneau v. Edwards, 517 So.2d 818, 822 (La.App. 1st Cir.1987) ... Considering the foregoing, we conclude that the trial court erred in ... ...