56 So. 3d 936
La.2011Background
- In 2009, Washington Parish amended La. R.S. 26:583(C)(2) to exempt certain parishes with populations 40,000–45,000 from A and B of § 583, effective August 15, 2009.
- Deer Enterprises, owner of Nemo's in Ward 3 (part of Council District 6), was denied a sell-alcohol permit after Ward 3’s “dry” status continued to apply.
- The trial court held § 583(C)(2) unconstitutional as a local or special law and as violative of equal protection; it issued a mandamus to issue the permit.
- Act 233 of 2009 amended § 583 to create the exemption, creating a population-based trigger that could apply to multiple parishes over time.
- The trial court’s ruling was appealed by Washington Parish; the issue is whether the amendment is constitutional as a non-local, non-special law and does not violate equal protection.
- The Supreme Court addresses whether § 583(C)(2) is a local law, a special law, or violates equal protection, and reverses the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is § 583(C)(2) a local law prohibiting arbitrary local application? | Deer contends the amendment targets specific parishes, thus local law. | Washington Parish argues the amendment has general effects and is population-based, not limited to one locality. | Not a local law; it has general effects and potential future reach. |
| Is § 583(C)(2) a special law granting privileges to a narrow class? | Deer argues it benefits certain parishes selectively. | The amendment does not confer private advantages to a class or special interests. | Not a special law; it does not privilege a private class. |
| Does § 583(C)(2) violate equal protection by classifying parishes by population? | The statute creates a population-based class that disadvantages Deer. | The amendment classifies parishes (not individuals) by population with no protected class implicated. | No equal protection violation; it does not classify individuals. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sabine Parish Police Jury v. Commissioner of Alcohol & Tobacco Control, 898 So.2d 1244 (La. 2005) (local-option-elections and timing of amendments context)
- Kimball v. Allstate Ins. Co., 712 So.2d 46 (La. 1998) (distinguishing local vs. general and special laws)
- Louisiana Paddlewheels v. Louisiana Riverboat Gaming Comm'n, 646 So.2d 889 (La. 1994) (general vs local laws; population-based classifications)
- Brazley, 773 So.2d 718 (La. 2000) (static population triggers and local-law characterization)
- Mortal v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 785 So.2d 1 (La. 2001) (equal protection analysis—government entity as party; classifications of entities)
- Knapp v. Jefferson-Plaquemines Drainage Dist., 68 So.2d 774 (La. 1953) (general vs local law distinctions in classification)