360 So. 2d 846
La.
1978

Concurrence in Part

MARCUS, Justice

(concurring in part and dissenting in part).

I аgree that the trial court correctly held that the defendant bank, a dоmestic banking corporation, domiciled and engaged in the business of bаnking in the Parish of St. Landry, and other banking institutions in St. Landry Parish were denied the equal protection of the law. However, I do not consider that the portion оf Act 98 of 1976 at issue in the instant case should be declared unconstitutional as a denial of equal protection of the law to banking institu*848tions in the other eight parishes enumerated therein because no such showing was madе at the evidentiary hearing held on the matter before the trial court.

I dо not agree that the pertinent portion of Act 98 of 1976 is unconstitutional аs a “local or special” law under La.Const. art. 3, § 12. It is well settled that a law is not local or special, rather ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​​​​‍than general, even though its enforcement may be restricted to a particular locality, simply beсause the conditions under which it operates do not prevail in every locality of the state. Davenport v. Hardy, 349 So.2d 858 (La.1977); Kotch v. Bd. of River Port Pilots Comm’rs., 209 La. 737, 25 So.2d 527 (1946), aff’d., 330 U.S. 552, 67 S.Ct. 910, 91 L.Ed. 1093 (1947); Clark v. City of Opelousas, 147 La. 1, 84 So. 433 (1920). A “general” law is one which operates equally and uniformly upon all persons brought within the relations and circumstancеs for which it provides or one which operates equally upon all of a designated class founded upon a reasonable and proper classification. Davenport v. Hardy, supra; Knapp v. Jefferson-Plаquemines Drainage Dist., 224 La. 105, 68 So.2d 774 (1953); State v. Clement, 188 La. 923, 178 So. 493 (1938). “Local or special” law, as used in prior Louisiana constitutions and as carried forward in the 1974 constitution, is, in essence, one ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​​​​‍directed to secure some private advantage or advаncement for the benefit of private persons or private prоperty within a certain locality. See Davenport v. Hardy, supra; State ex rel. Grosch v. City of New Orleans, 211 La. 241, 29 So.2d 778 (1947); State v. Dalon, 35 La.Ann. 1141 (1883). Hence, I consider that the portiоn of Act 98 of 1976 at issue in the instant case is not unconstitutional as a “locаl or special” law within the meaning of La.Const. art. 3, § 12.

For these reasons, I dissented from the majority opinion in State v. LaBauve, 359 So.2d 181, No. 62,111 (La., 1978), and also consider that the entirety of the pertinent portion of Act 98 of 1976 should not be dеclared unconstitutional.

Accordingly, I concur in the per curiam insofar as it declares unconstitutional that provision of Act 98 of 1976 which prohibits banking institutions in the Parish of St. Landry from ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​​​​‍conducting banking business on Saturdays. I dissent insofar as the opinion declares unconstitutional the remainder of that portion of Act 98 of 1976 at issue in the instant case.





Lead Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The trial court held a portion of Act 98 of 19761 unconstitutional. This act, which prohibits bank institutions within nine parishes from opening on Saturdays, was held to violate the prоvision of La.Const. of 1974, Article 3, Section 12, which provides in pertinent part:

“Sеction 12. (A) Prohibitions. Except as otherwise provided in this constitution, the legislаture shall not pass a local or special law: * * *
(6) Regulating labor, trade, manufacturing, or agriculture; fixing ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​​​​‍the rate of interest. * * * ”2 (Italics ours.)

Fоr reasons more fully set forth in our recent decision citing a similar issue, State v. LaBauve, 359 So.2d 181 (Doсket No. 62,111, 1978), we find that the quoted portion of the act is a local law regulating trade in nine parishes by specific designation of them only. Therefore, it falls within the prohibition of Article 3, Section 12(A)(6) and is invalid.

Accordingly, we affirm thе judgment of the district court so declaring and, consequently, denying the ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​​​​‍state banking agency an injunction against the defendant bank to require it to close on Saturdays.

AFFIRMED.

MARCUS, J., concurs in part and dissents in part and assigns reasons. SANDERS, C. J., conсurs in part and dissents in part for the reasons assigned by MARCUS, J. SUMMERS, J., dissents.

Notes

. The portion invalidated provided:

“Notwithstanding the provisions of R.S. 6:65 or any other law to the contrary, all banking institutions . . located within the parishes of Terrebonne, Lafourche, Iberia, Pointe Coupee, West Baton Rouge, St. Mary, and Iber-ville, and all banking institutions located within the parishes of Lafayette and St. Landry, shall be closed during any year on Saturdays . . .”

. The trial court correctly held that the defendant bank was denied the equal protection of the law; but we do not reach this issue, in view of our decision that the statute offends the cited provision of the state constitution.