# Tugwell v. Members of the Board of Highways

> Supreme Court of Louisiana · November 7, 1955 · 228 La. 662

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9676753

## Case

- **Full name:** Andrew P. TUGWELL Et Al. v. MEMBERS OF the BOARD OF HIGHWAYS and the Department of Highways
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Louisiana
- **Decided:** November 7, 1955
- **Citations:** 228 La. 662; 83 So. 2d 893; 1955 La. LEXIS 1407
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hamiter
- **Judges:** Fournet, Hamiter, Hawthorne, McCALEB, McCALEB'S, Ponder, Simon
- **Cited by:** 33 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9676753

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing LSA-R.S. 48:27 (West 1965)

## Opinion text

HAMITER, Justice
(concurring).
Initially, and until the action taken by ús' on; the. application for a rehearing, this cause did present a justiciable .controversy with -respect to the questions of whether, the Department .of Highways is a corporate, entity separate and distinct from the State of Louisiana and, as such, whether it may. issue bonds which would not constitute an indebtedness of "the state. Thus, had we decreed to be constitutional 'Act 5 of 1954 (it authorized'the issuance by such'Department of--bonds-that purportedly did not constitute an indebtedness of the state) a determina- ■ tion of the mentioned questions would have' been necessary. However, we declared.' such statute to be violative of Section 22 of Article 6 of the Louisiana Constitution and, later, refused the application for a rehear-ing as to that issue, the result of all of' which was that the remaining two questions became moot and, hence, a consideration and a resolution thereof were not required.
I respectfully concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9676753. Public record. Not legal advice.