# Cobb v. Louisiana Board of Institutions

> Supreme Court of Louisiana · April 27, 1959 · 237 La. 315

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9687292

## Case

- **Full name:** Lloyd J. COBB v. the LOUISIANA BOARD OF INSTITUTIONS Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Louisiana
- **Decided:** April 27, 1959
- **Citations:** 237 La. 315; 111 So. 2d 126; 1959 La. LEXIS 1004
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hawthorne
- **Judges:** Hamiter, Hamlin, Hawthorne, Ponder, Simon, Tate
- **Cited by:** 20 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/9687292

## Opinion text

HAWTHORNE, Justice
(dissenting).
According to the majority opinion Section 4 of Senate Bill No. 100 is an appropriation, and for the reasons given in the opinion the majority conclude that the act in its entirety is unconstitutional because this section cannot be separated from the remaining portions of the bill.
As I view the matter,, the main purpose and object of the bill was to waive sovereign immunity from suit in favor of Cobb, and this was the intention of the Legislature in adopting the bill. Consequently, assuming that Section 4 is an appropriation, I think it can be deleted from the bill even in the absence of a separability clause, leaving the remaining portions of the bill perfectly valid as carrying out the main purpose and object of the bill itself. One of the cases cited in the majority opinion, Calcasieu Long Leaf Lumber Co. v. Reid, 146 La. 77, 83 So. 384 , is authority for this very proposition. The following extract from .that case is quoted in the majority opinion:
“Of course, there are cases where a statute may be valid in one respect and invalid in another. But they are cases where the two parts of the lavo are so distinct and separable that the court can conclude that the intention of the Legislature was that the valid provisions, of the law should be enforced, without regard for the provisions declared invalid. * * * ” (Italics mine.) See also Womack v. Varnado, 204 La. 1019 , 16 So.2d 825 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9687292. Public record. Not legal advice.