Woodard v. Reily
| Decision Date | 08 April 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 46560,46560 |
| Citation | 244 La. 337,152 So.2d 41 |
| Parties | Dr. Boyd M. WOODARD v. James S. REILY, Commissioner of Administration, State of Louisiana, et al. |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Robert L. Roland of Watson, Blanche, Wilson, Posner & Thibaut, Baton Rouge, Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., Carroll Buck, 1st Asst. Atty. Gen., John E. Jackson, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants-appellants.
Ogden, Woods, Henriques & Rives, by Charlton B. Ogden, II, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellee.
Dr. Boyd M. Woodard, alleging that he was a taxpayer and resident of the State of Louisiana, brought suit against James S. Reily, Commissioner of Administration, Roy R. Theriot, Comptroller, and A. P. Tugwell, Treasurer, in their official and executive capacities as Officers of the State of Louisiana; he prayed that they be ordered to show cause why writs of preliminary injunction should not issue as follows:
'To: Honorable A. P. Tugwell, Treasurer, and Honorable Roy R. Theriot, Comptroller, ordering and commanding these two defendants to honor all appropriations made by Act 75 of the 1962 Legislature and to pay same without regard to any contingencies whatsoever, either unconstitutionally established by Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 of Act 75 of the Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature of 1962 or sought to be exercised by defendant, Honorable James S. Reily, Commissioner of Administration, pursuant to R.S. 39:42, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 95, 96, 97, 231 and 233 or unconstitutionally assumed or by any other alleged authority.
'To: Honorable James S. Reily, Commissioner of Administration, enjoining, restraining and prohibiting said defendant from exercising or attempting to exercise any of the functions attempted to be delegated to him or his officers, agents, employees and counsel and/or those persons in active concert or participation with him under the alleged authority contained in Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 of Act 75 of the Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature of 1962 and/or R.S 39:42, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 95, 96, 97, 231 and 233.
'That these injunctions issue not only to defendants, but as well to their officers, agents, employees and counsel and those persons in active concert or participation with them.
'That in due course permanent injunctions issue in the same form and substance as to preliminary injunctions prayed for hereinabove.'
Plaintiff attacked the constitutionality of Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 of Act 75 of 1962, the General Appropriations Act, and the constitutionality of LSA-R.S. 39:42, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 95, 96, 97, 231 and 233. He alleged that the continued actions of the defendants in the manner described in this petition, would cause irreparable injury to him and other taxpayers similarly situated. He further stated that he was attaching exhibits which would illustrate specific unlawful and unconstitutional acts of the defendants. Plaintiff prayed that the defendants, their officers, agents, employees, counsel, and any persons in active concert or participation with them, be enjoined from taking any action whatsoever under the alleged unconstitutional provisions.
In answer to plaintiff's petition, defendant Tugwell, appearing through Jack P. F. Gremillion, Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, and other counsel, averred in part:
'Your respondent is a member of the State Budget Committee created under authority of R.S. 17:88, the functions of which said Board are clearly set forth in the said Section of Revised Statutes of 1950 which is made a part hereof by reference.
'That despite the fact that appropriations have been made to the parish school boards throughout the State, your respondent Has been required to honor payment of appropriations to certain school boards, dependent upon directives and proclamations issued by the Division of Administration and by the Legislative Budget Committee, without due regard to the adoption of the said budgets pursuant to R.S. 17:88, as illustrated by the attached exhibits made a part hereof, each of which has been properly identified.
'That respondent in his official capacity and in the performance of his ministerial duties is required to assume constitutionality of legislative acts, and he will continue to abide by the same in all respects until or unless he is restrained by the Honorable Court.'
Defendant Tugwell concluded with a prayer for dismissal of plaintiff's suit.
Defendant Theriot, also appearing through the Attorney General and other counsel, answered plaintiff's petition, averring in part:
'* * * respondent avers that your respondent, as Comptroller of the State of Louisiana, in the performance of his ministerial duties is required to honor warrants for the withdrawal of funds from the State Treasury, where specific appropriations have been made for a definite purpose and to a particular agency or official and it is his duty as such to presume constitutionality of any conditions or contingencies which may have been imposed by the Legislature in the use of said appropriated funds.
'That pursuant to said assumption of constitutionality your respondent unless enjoined by this Honorable Court has and will continue to honor warrants drawn upon the State Treasury, only when approved by the Division of Administration and by the State Budget Committee, all as provided for in Act 75 of 1962, and upon the contingencies set forth in the particular Sections of Title 39 of the Revised Statutes of 1950 which are set forth in particularity in petition filed herein.
'That your respondent has received numerous directives and proclamations issued to him under authority of the said Sections of Act 75 and the said provisions of Title 39, which have had the effect of prohibiting him from honoring warrants for money to be withdrawn from the State Treasury on appropriations made by said Act 75, or any other appropriation act, which practices respondent will continue to follow unless restrained or enjoined by this Honorable Court, all as shown by properly identified exhibits * * *'
Defendant Theriot also prayed that plaintiff's suit be dismissed.
Defendant James S. Reily filed exceptions of no right or cause of action and want of interest, and, alternatively, exceptions of vagueness and non-joinder of parties defendant to plaintiff's petition.
Defendant Reily alleged that plaintiff sued in his capacity as a citizen and taxpayer, not to enjoin an illegal expenditure of public funds which he had the right to do under the jurisprudence of this State, but to enjoin the enforcement of certain fiscal safeguards provided by statute and administrative rulings in connection therewith. He urged that plaintiff was without sufficient interest to bring the action.
Defendant Reily further contended that plaintiff complained of the activities of the Louisiana Legislative Budget Committee and sought to restrict them, but that he did not make the Committee a party defendant as he should have done.
Jack P. F. Gremillion, Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, and certain of his Assistants, made an appearance in the matter and submitted their views, which we quote in part as follows:
'THAT the Attorney General agrees with plaintiff's contention that those Sections of Act Number 75 of 1962 enumerated in plaintiff's petition are unconstitutional because they constitute contingencies which impinge upon this General Appropriations Act, all of which are manifestly repugnant to Article 4, Sections 9 and 10, of the Louisiana Constitution of 1921 (LSA).
'THAT the Attorney General agrees with plaintiff's contention that those certain Sections of Title 39 enumerated in plaintiff's petition are unconstitutional as an unlawful delegation of legislative authority and function being manifestly repugnant and violative of Sections 1 and 2 of Article 2 of the Louisiana Constitution of 1921, and as well, Article 4, Section 1 of said Constitution.'
Said Attorney General and his said Assistants prayed that their response be deemed in full compliance with law and that plaintiff be granted the relief for which he prayed.
Defendant Reily filed a motion to strike the entire document entitled 'Appearance' filed by the Attorney General and his Assistants averring that said 'Appearance' was an insufficient defense to a lawsuit; that the opinions referred to therein were of no judicial significance.
The trial court overruled the exceptions of no right or cause of action, want of interest, non-joinder of parties defendant, and vagueness; the motion to strike was taken under advisement. The rule nisi was then heard upon verified pleadings, supporting affidavits, and the testimony of the immediate parties to the suit.
The judgment of the trial court decreed that Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 of Act 75 of 1962, the General Appropriations Act of the 1962 Legislature, were unconstitutional; it further decreed that LSA-R.S. 39:42, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 95, 96, 97, 231 and 233, were unconstitutional. The preliminary writs of injunction prayed for in plaintiff's petition were granted, to be issued upon plaintiff furnishing bond in the sum of $500.00. All exceptions filed were overruled.
In their appeal to this Court, defendants set forth the following specification of errors:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flast v. Cohen
...may not enjoin state expenditure of $1.49); contra, Richardson v. Blackburn, 41 Del.Ch. 54, 187 A.2d 823 (1963); Woodard v. Reily, 244 La. 337, 152 So.2d 41 (1963). The estimates of commentators as to how many jurisdictions have specifically upheld taxpayers' suits range from 32 to 40. See ......
-
Board of Com'rs of Port of New Orleans v. Splendour Shipping & Enterprises Co., Inc.
...and pare away this unqualified grant of power, so as to make it consort with my ideas of common right.' See also Woodard v. Reily, 244 La. 337, 152 So.2d 41 (1963); State through Department of Highways v. Macaluso, 235 La. 1019, 106 So.2d 455 (1958); In re Diaz, 211 La. 1015, 31 So.2d 195 (......
-
Louisiana Associated General Contractors, Inc. v. Calcasieu Parish School Bd.
...public body are afforded a right of action upon a mere showing of an interest, however small and indeterminable. 5 See Woodard v. Reily, 244 La. 337, 152 So.2d 41 (1963); Stewart v. Stanley, The plaintiffs herein seek declaratory and injunctive relief. They clearly are attempting to restrai......
-
Rapides General Hosp. v. Robinson
... ... 1 Other Governor's executive orders or actions reviewed by the Supreme Court include: Woodard v. Reily, 244 La. 337, 152 So.2d 41 (1963); Albritton v. Grace, 233 La. 273, 96 So.2d 565 (1957); and Chappuis v. Reggie, 222 La. 35, 62 So.2d 92 ... ...