City of New Orleans v. Levy
| Decision Date | 23 March 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 41135,41135 |
| Citation | 64 So.2d 798,223 La. 14 |
| Parties | CITY OF NEW ORLEANS v. LEVY. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Henry B. Curtis, City Atty., Jorda S. Derbes, Asst. City Atty., and Jacob H. Morrison, New Orleans, of counsel, for plaintiff-appellee.
Rittenberg, Weinstein & Bronfin and Nathan Greenberg, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.
In the Municipal Court of New Orleans the defendant, Dan Levy, was prosecuted under separate affidavits for alleged violations of Ordinance No. 14,538 C.C.S., as amended, which provides for the regulating of the Vieux Carre Section of such city wherein he operates a business. Specifically, the charges were: (1) On October 16, 1951--displaying signs in excess of area and of illuminating character prohibited by law, and (2) on February 20, 1952--addition to building by enclosure with pink plastic without obtaining a permit from the Vieux Carre Commission.
Found guilty, and sentenced on each charge to a fine of less than $300, defendant requested and obtained appeals which have been consolidated and are docketed here under one number. In entertaining them we are restricted to a consideration of those issues that relate to the constitutionality or legality of the ordinance imposing the penalties, its contestation constituting the sole basis for our having jurisdiction.
By Article 14, Section 22A of the Louisiana Constitution, added by Act No. 139 of 1936 as adopted November 3, 1936, the City of New Orleans obtained the right to establish and maintain the Vieux Carre Commission, for the purpose and under the circumstances therein outlined, the pertinent portions of which read as follows:
'The Commission Council of the City of New Orleans is hereby authorized to create and organize a Commission to be known as the Vieux Carre Commission, to be appointed by the Mayor of said City with the advice and consent of its Commission Council and to be composed of nine members, all of whom shall be citizens of the City of New Orleans. * * *
'The said Commission shall have for its purpose the preservation of such buildings in the Vieux Carre section of the City of New Orleans as, in the opinion of said Commission, shall be deemed to have architectural and historical value, and which buildings should be preserved for the benefit of the people of the City of New Orleans and the State of Louisiana, and to that end the Commission shall be given such powers and duties as the Commission council of the City of New Orleans shall deem fit and necessary.
'The Vieux Carre section of the City of New Orleans is hereby defined to comprise all that area within the City Limits of the City of New Orleans contained within the following boundaries: The River, Uptown side of Esplanade Avenue, the River side of Rampart Street, and the lower side of Iberville Street.
'* * *
'The preservation of the buildings in the Vieux Carre section of New Orleans having architectural and historical value is hereby declared to be a public purpose and the City of New Orleans is hereby authorized to acquire by purchase or expropriation or otherwise, such buildings and other structures in that section of the City of New Orleans, as the said Vieux Carre Commission may recommend to the Commission Council.
'Hereafter and for the public welfare and in order that the quaint and distinctive character of the Vieux Carre section of the City of New Orleans may not be injuriously affected, and in order that the value to the community of those buildings having architectural and historical worth may not be impaired, and in order that a reasonable degree of control may be exercised over the architecture of private and semi-public buildings erected on or abutting the public streets of said Vieux Carre section, whenever any application is made for a permit for the erection of any new building or whenever any application is made for a permit for alterations or additions to any existing building, any portion of which is to front on any public street in the Vieux Carre section, the plans therefor, so far as they relate to the appearance, color, texture of materials and architectural design of the exterior thereof shall be submitted by the owner to the Vieux Carre Commission and the said Commission shall report promptly to the Commission Council its recommendations, including such changes, if any, as in its judgment are necessary, and the said Commission Council shall take such action as shall, in its judgment, effect reasonable compliance with such recommendation, or to prevent any violation thereof.
'The Commission Council of the City of New Orleans may, by ordinance or otherwise, carry the above and foregoing provisions into effect. * * *'
In conformity with that authorization the Commission Council of the City of New Orleans, on March 3, 1937, adopted Ordinance No. 14,538 C.C.S., creating and organizing the Vieux Carre Commission, which largely tracked the quoted constitutional provision. Additionally, the ordinance prescribed detailed governing regulations for the Vieux Carre section, particularly with respect to alterations to and construction of buildings and to the erection and maintenance of signs; and it imposed penalties for violations.
Until May 25, 1946 the ordinance, although changed somewhat from time to time in some other respects, continued to describe and define the Vieux Carre section exactly as was done in the constitutional grant, namely '* * * all that area within the City Limits of the City of New Orleans contained within the following boundaries: The River, Uptown side of Esplanade Avenue, the River side of Rampart Street, and the lower side of Iberville Street.' On such date, however, Ordinance No. 16,430 C.C.S. was adopted which provided:
'Section I. Be It Ordained By The Commission Council Of The City Of New Orleans, That Ordinance No. 14,538 C.C.S. * * * be amended by adding a Section to follow Section 19 of said Ordinance to be known as Section 19 1/2, reading as follows:
'The River-side lots and buildings on North Rampart Street, from Conti Street to Esplanade Avenue, not to exceed their present depth, and in no case to exceed the depth of one-half of the square; Square No. 96 bounded by Iberville, Rampart, Bienville and Burgundy Streets; Square No. 97 bounded by Bienville, Rampart, Conti and Burgundy Streets; the squares contained in the area bounded by Wilkinson Street, the River-side of Decatur Street, from Wilkinson to Iberville Street, and the Mississippi River; all properties and lots on which same are located, presently occupied by the Monteleone Hotel in Square 35, bounded by Iberville, Royal, Exchange Alley and Bienville Street.
Prior to the adoption of such amendment this court, on two separate occasions, considered the question of the validity of the ordinance and decreed it to be legal and constitutional. City of New Orleans v. Impastato, 1941, 198 La. 206, 3 So.2d 559 and City of New Orleans v. Pergament, 1941, 198 La. 852, 5 So.2d 129. Nevertheless, defendant asserts herein that he is raising certain constitutional challenges not heretofore passed upon.
First, he maintains that the ordinance contravenes constitutional rights in that it is vague and indefinite and without adequate standards, thereby failing to inform an accused of the nature and cause of alleged violations, he especially directing attention to the use of the words 'architectural and historical,' 'quaint and distinctive,' and 'theatres.' We do not agree. The word 'theatres' is found in an exempting clause of the ordinance reading: 'Existing hotels having a room capacity of fifty rooms or over, and all existing theatres housed in buildings having no architectural or historical value shall be allowed to maintain such displays as are permitted by law to establishment of this nature in other Sections of the City.' Accepted in its usual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A-S-P Associates v. City of Raleigh
...171 Conn. 198, 368 A.2d 163 (1976); Rebman v. City of Springfield, 111 Ill.App.2d 430, 250 N.E.2d 282 (1969); City of New Orleans v. Levy, 223 La. 14, 64 So.2d 798 (1953); Opinion of the Justices, 333 Mass. 773, 128 N.E.2d 557 (1955); Opinion of the Justices, 333 Mass. 783, 128 N.E.2d 563 (......
-
Maher v. City of New Orleans
...Ordinance on its face was not vulnerable to charges of vagueness or indefiniteness. 235 So.2d at 405, n. 3, citing City of New Orleans v. Levy, 223 La. 14, 69 So.2d 798 (1953); City of New Orleans v. Pergament, 198 La. 852, 5 So.2d 129 (1941); City of New Orleans v. Impastato, 198 La. 206, ......
-
Godfrey v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Union County
...Law and Practice § 11-8 (4th ed. 1978), citing Archer v. City of Shreveport, 226 La. 867, 77 So.2d 517 (1955); City of New Orleans v. Levy, 223 La. 14, 64 So.2d 798 (1953), and cases cited The act of a municipal legislative body which purports to enact or amend a zoning ordinance but which ......
-
Ben Lomond, Inc. v. City of Idaho Falls
...N.E.2d 9, 14-15 (1949); Criterion Service, Inc. v. City of East Cleveland, 88 N.E.2d 300, 303 (Ohio App. 1949).47 City of New Orleans v. Levy, 223 La. 14, 64 So.2d 798 (1953) (historic and architectural qualities preserved): Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, 333 Mass. 773, 783, 128 N.......
-
Land Use Legislation: H.b. 1034 and H.b. 1041
...(1975); Figarsky v. Historic District Comm'n of the City of Norwich, 171 Conn. 198, 368 A.2d 163 (1976); New Orleans v. Levy, 233 La. 14, 64 So.2d 798 (1974); Annapolis v. Anne Arundel County, 271 Md. 265, 316 A.2d 807 (Md. App. 1974). 31. C.R.S. 1973, § 24-80-401. 32. C.R.S. 1973, § 24-80-......