Court Opinion

ID: 9857664
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 15:53:27.17762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:52:59.322051
License: Public Domain

SUMMERS,
Justice (dissenting).
A vital issue is presented by this case and compels this dissent. As important as the rights of this defendant may be, the more significant aspect of this decision is the effect of the court’s disregard of the plain language of the constitution. This decision goes to the very heart of the stability of constitutional government. It represents a repudiation by judicial decree of the fundamental law upon which the structure of our government is founded! If this can be accomplished in this instance • — it can and will occur again.
The constitution is plain. It provides that “private property shall not be taken or damaged except for public purposes and after pest and adequate compensation is paid.” La.Const. art. 1, § 2. (Emphasis added.)
The contested legislative act, however, entitles the plaintiff to the property it seeks “in the same manner as would a voluntary conveyance” 1 after judgment in the trial court and before there is a determination on appeal of the adequacy of the compensation.
What is clear to me is that there can he no taking of property until there is a determination of just and adequate com*111pensation; and this determination is really no determination at all until the judgment on that question is final; and that judgment is not final until the question is adjudicated by the court of last resort.
To permit the plaintiff to take possession and control of defendant’s property prior to that time, therefore, constitutes a disregard of the constitutional mandate pure and simple.
This decision points out the regrettable tendency of constitutional amendment and revision by the judiciary. It discards the cherished notion that government derives its just power from the consent of the governed. Expediency, upon which the court founds its judgment, is too costly when constitutional principles are the price that must be paid.
I adhere to the reasons assigned in our original opinion.

. La.Civil Code art. 2634.