Court Opinion

ID: 9659879
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:56:47.78901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:12.513634
License: Public Domain

McCALEB, Justice
(concurring).
I am in agreement with the majority opinion that the assailed sections of Act 75 of 1962 and Title 39 of the Revised Statutes are constitutional.
However, I also believe that the exception of want of interest is well founded. Plaintiff-taxpayer does not here seek to enjoin the illegal expenditure of public monies, as was the case in Graham v. Jones, 198 La. 507, 3 So.2d 761; Stewart v. Stanley, 199 La. 146, 5 So.2d 531 and Ricks v. Close, 201 La. 242, 9 So.2d 534. His basic complaint is that the manner in which *385the staiutes claimed to be unconstitutional are being administered is preventing various Departments of the State from getting all‘ the money appropriated to them by the Legislature. He cannot champion the grievance of these Departments; they have an adequate remedy under the law. Taxpayer actions, in my view, should be circumscribed to those cases in which the act sought to be enjoined is the assessment of an illegal tax or the unlawful expenditure of funds under the authority of a palpably unconstitutional statute.
I therefore respectfully concur in the result.