Boudreaux v. Larpenter, 110 So. 3d 159

Plaintiffs operate Tradewinds and reside at the Bayouside Drive property, which they also use for heavy truck traffic.
Bayouside Drive is a substandard parish road, historically restricted by a five-ton limit and later by a fifteen-ton limit via ordinance.
Ordinance 5685 (1996) established a 15-ton limit along Bayouside Drive, with signs posted to enforce it.
Tradewinds and its drivers continued heavy-truck operations on Bayouside Drive despite the ordinance, with enforcement beginning in 1999.
Ordinance 6362 (2000) repealed 5685 and re-enacted a 15-ton limit with a permit and mitigation requirements; applications were to be evaluated by the director of public works.
Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and declaratory/ inverse condemnation relief, alleging unconstitutional takings and due process violations; permit negotiations continued without a permit being issued.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the ordinances a taking under the Louisiana and US constitutions?	Boudreaux seeks inverse condemnation due to diminished value/use.	Ordinances rationally relate to road preservation; permit regime provides compensation avenues.	No taking; regulations rationally related to public welfare.
Do procedural due process guarantees apply to legislative actions?	Procedural due process denied by ordinance passage without adequate process.	Ordinances are legislative, not subject to procedural due process; hearings occurred via appeal process.	No procedural due process violation.
Do substantive due process rights protect against these ordinances?	Ordinances arbitrarily deprive property use.	Regulation is rationally related to road safety and maintenance.	Regulation rationally related to legitimate governmental interest; no substantive due process violation.
Is there an equal protection violation in enforcing the weight limits?	Selective enforcement harms plaintiffs; others not cited.	Rational basis review applies; classification serves legitimate interest; enforcement by sheriffs not at issue.	No equal protection violation.
Did the plaintiffs establish any physically taken or damaged property under Louisiana law?	Regulatory actions destroyed economically viable use of Bayouside Drive.	Record shows gradual, lawful regulatory response with available permit mechanism; no major destruction of value.	No physical taking; no constitutional taking shown.

State v. All Property and Casualty Insurance Carriers Authorized and Licensed to do Business in State, 937 So.2d 313 (La. 2006) (clear-evidence standard for constitutionality of regulations)
Wes-T-Erre Development Corp. v. Terrebonne Parish, 416 So.2d 209 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1982) (police power and reasonableness of regulations)
Annison v. Hoover, 517 So.2d 420 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1987) (regulatory takings/when loss of value constitutes taking)
Standard Materials, Inc. v. City of Slidell, 700 So.2d 975 (La. App. 1st Cir. 1997) (substantive due process path and ripeness considerations)
Suire v. Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Government, 907 So.2d 37 (La. 2005) (takings framework and public purpose requirement)
Jackson Court Condominiums, Inc. v. New Orleans, 874 F.2d 1070 (5th Cir. 1989) (procedural due process limitations for quasi-legislative actions)