Wright v. Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal District

186 So. 2d 639, 1966 La. App. LEXIS 5143
CourtLouisiana Court of Appeal
DecidedMay 25, 1966
DocketNo. 1788
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 186 So. 2d 639 (Wright v. Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Louisiana Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wright v. Lake Charles Harbor & Terminal District, 186 So. 2d 639, 1966 La. App. LEXIS 5143 (La. Ct. App. 1966).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff instituted this action to enjoin the issuance of bonds in accordance with two separate bond resolutions adopted by the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District. One of the bases of plaintiff’s suit is the alleged unconstitutionality of the acts under which the resolutions were adopted and of the acts of the defendant district. The district court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment and plaintiff appealed.

The defendant District has raised the question of this court’s jurisdiction by a motion to dismiss the appeal.

[640]*640The appellee District contends that the instant. appeal is controlled by Article 7, Section 10 of the Louisiana Constitution, which provides for exclusive appellant jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of “(1) Cases in which the constitutionality of legality of any tax, local improvement assessment, toll or impost levied by the state or by any parish, municipality, board or subdivision of the state is contested * * (Italics ours) 1

Concisely stated, defendant’s position is that since the bond resolutions adopted by defendant contemplate the levy of a tax and since plaintiff has attacked the constitutionality of the resolutions, the instant case falls within the provisions of the Louisiana Constitution quoted above. If this position is sound, the Supreme Court of Louisiana would have appellate jurisdiction of the instant appeal and we would not.

However, our Supreme Court has ruled contrary to defendant-appellee’s position in Washington Parish Police Jury v. Washington Parish Hospital Service, 243 La. 671, 146 So.2d 157, 160 our Supreme Court stated:

“ * * * When the bonds are issued the governing authority is then to impose and collect the tax. * * * Since the bonds have not been issued and no action has been taken to impose the tax in this case, there is no levy. * * * Until the district does take action to impose the tax pursuant to the authorization, there is no levy. * * * Because the tax has not been ‘levied’ this court has no appellate jurisdiction. * *

An examination of the Revised Statutes concerning the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District (LSA-R.S. 34:201 et seq.) reveals that the passage of a bond resolution does not constitute a tax “levied” by the district. See LSA-R.S. 34:211, which provides:

“The board shall levy annually on all property situated within the district subject to taxation any special taxes that may be necessary to provide for the payment of principal and interest on the bonds authorized to be issued under this Part.”

For the above reasons, we determine that we have jurisdiction over the instant appeal under the provisions of Article 7, Section 29 of the Louisiana Constitution, vesting us with appellate jurisdiction of cases which cannot be appealed directly to the Supreme Court. Consequently, we overrule the motion to dismiss the appeal to this court.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Wright v. Harbor
188 So. 2d 449 (Louisiana Court of Appeal, 1966)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
186 So. 2d 639, 1966 La. App. LEXIS 5143, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-lake-charles-harbor-terminal-district-lactapp-1966.