Case ID: so2d_249/html/0920-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "TATE, Justice.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

259 La. 313
    Parey P. BRANTON and John G. Schwegmann, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. STATE BOND AND TAX BOARD, Defendant-Respondent-Appellee (Village of Shongaloo, Intervenor-Appellant, August J. La Nasa, Intervenor-Relator, Martha G. Robinson and John J. Watermeier, Jr., Intervenors-Respondents).
    Nos. 51413, 51430.
    Supreme Court of Louisiana.
    May 25, 1971.
    Rehearing Denied June 11, 1971.
    Richard C. Cadwallader, Jonathan C. Harris, Curtis K. Stafford, Jr., Baton Rouge, for plaintiffs-appellees-appellants-respondents.
    Bernstein & Bach, Joseph Bernstein, New Orleans, for intervenor.
    Benton & Moseley, Fred G. Benton, Sr., Fred G. Benton, Jr., Baton Rouge, for amicus curiae.
    Lemle, Kelleher, Kohlmeyer, Matthews & Schumacher, Harry B. Kelleher, New Orleans, Durrett, Hardin, Hunter, Dameron & Fritchie, Calvin E. Hardin, Jr., Baton Rouge, Foley, Judell, Beck, Morel & Bew-ley, Harold B. Judell, Calogero & Kron-lage, Pascal F. Calogero, Jr., New Orleans, Melvin Bellar, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendants.
   TATE, Justice.

The present action was consolidated for trial and for consideration on review by this court with two companion suits: Abbott v. Parker, 259 La. 279, 249 So.2d 908 (rendered this same date); and Schwegmann v. Parker, 259 La. 315, 249 So.2d 921 (rendered this same date).

The present is a proceeding by two registered voters, who are owners of real property, taxpayers, and legislators of Louisiana. By this suit they principally question, as invalid and ill-considered, the action of the State Bond and Tax Board in approving the $113 million of Second Series bonds issued by the Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District in connection with the construction of the domed stadium in New Orleans.

The trial court dismissed the suit. Under our supervisory jurisdiction immediate review was granted to one of the interve-nors (LaNasa) on behalf of the plaintiffs, so as to determine at once all issues raised and argued in connection with the Abbott case, above cited.

Decree.

For the reasons set forth in the cited Abbott decision, we find that the judgment of the trial court correctly dismissed this suit. The plaintiffs and intervenors are to pay the costs of these proceedings, except as exempted by law.

Affirmed.