"[A] declaratory judgment action generally cannot be maintained unless it involves some specific adversary question or controversy asserted by interested parties and based on an existing state of facts, and a declaration of rights must be refused if the issue presented to the court is academic, theoretical, or based upon a contingency which may or may not arise."
How later courts described this case
- "[A] declaratory judgment action generally cannot be maintained unless it involves some specific adversary question or controversy asserted by interested parties and based on an existing state of facts, and a declaration of rights must be refused if the issue presented to the court is academic, theoretical, or based upon a contingency which may or may not arise."
- discussing LSA-R.S. 48:27 (West 1965)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McCALEB, Justice
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
While I am in full accord with the majority ruling that the Department of Highways cannot fund the proceeds of the taxes collected pursuant to R.S. 47:711, subd. B into bonds without violating Section 22 of Article 6 of the Constitution, I cannot agree with the holding that the Department of Highways is such a corporate entity, distinct from the State of Louisiana, as to issue bonds which would not constitute an indebtedness of the State in violation of Section .2 of Article 4 of the Constitution.
As pointed out in my concurring opinion in Department of Highways v. Thomas, 200 La. 73 , 7 So.2d 619 , the Department of Highways, although given separate corporate existence by law, is nothing* more nor less than a State agency and all funds which come into its possession belong, in reality, to the people. Hence, any attempt of that body (which has plenary power to contract for the State) to issue bonds would be, in my opinion, the contracting of a debt or liability on behalf of the State and therefore unconstitutional.
For these reasons, I respectfully concur in the result.