Opinion ID: 28186
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Necessary Purpose

Text: 23 There are at least two components to the necessary purpose inquiry under Louisiana law. First, the private expropriator must show that there is a public necessity for the expropriation; i.e., that there is a public demand for the expropriation. 37 Second, the expropriator must show that the expropriation is expedient; i.e., [t]he amount of land and the nature of the acreage taken must be reasonably necessary for the purpose of the expropriation. ... 38 24 The district court erred in its necessary purpose analysis because it focused only on the expediency aspect of the inquiry. The court stated that the necessary purpose requirement is satisfied if the taking is for railroad purposes, 39 and emphasized that the expropriator need not show actual, immediate, and impending necessity for the expropriation. 40 Since the Mayeuxs did not allege that Illinois Central was attempting to expropriate more property than was needed for the proposed spur, the court found that summary judgment was proper. 25 Before reaching the expediency issue, however, the court should have considered whether there was a public necessity for the spur. A key aspect of the public necessity inquiry under Louisiana expropriation law is whether there is an actual public demand for the expropriation. 41 The court should have examined this issue and found a genuine issue of fact regarding the public demand for the proposed spur. Illinois Central presented evidence of public demand for the spur by showing that certain chemical companies had directly petitioned the railroad to build a spur to this location. The Mayeuxs, however, presented expert testimony from a transportation and logistics specialist stating that there is no public demand for the proposed spur because it will be unattractive to companies in the business of shipping bulk chemicals. The Mayeuxs' expert opined that the proposed spur will rarely, if ever, be used to ship chemicals from the Mississippi Valley. Despite its relevance to the public demand or public necessity inquiry, the district court's summary judgment opinion makes no mention of this expert testimony. 26 Because the Mayeuxs have shown that there is a genuine dispute as to whether there is a public demand or public necessity for the spur, summary judgment on this material issue of fact was unwarranted. On remand, the district court must determine whether there is a sufficient public demand for the proposed spur to satisfy the necessary purpose requirement under Louisiana law.