Court Opinion

ID: 9687292
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:22:21.097341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:25.542859
License: Public Domain

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.