Melancon v. Assumption Parish Police Jury
Also decided on this docket: La. Ct. App. 1st Cir., October 31, 1952 61 So. 2d 534; La., April 15, 1880 32 La. Ann. 553
Melancon v. Assumption Parish Police Jury, 231 So. 2d 690 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1970).
Cited by
- Liberto v. Rapides Parish Police Jury 667 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
- Ouachita Parish Police Jury v. AM. WASTE AND POLLUTION CONTROL CO. 606 So. 2d 1341 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
- Pogo Producing Co. v. Sea Robin Pipeline Co. 493 So. 2d 909 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1986
- Freeman v. Treen 442 So. 2d 757 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
- Lamb v. Quality Inspection Services, Inc. 398 So. 2d 643 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1981
- Richland Parish Bus Drivers Ass'n v. Richland Parish School Board 393 So. 2d 809 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
- Daigre Engineers, Inc. v. City of Winnfield 385 So. 2d 866 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1980
- Arthurs v. Morial 383 So. 2d 444 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
- General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Daniels 377 So. 2d 346 La. 1979
- National Pac. Corp. v. American Com. Fin. Corp. 348 So. 2d 735 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1977
- Perez v. Edwards 336 So. 2d 1072 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
- Price v. STATE, DEPT. OF PUB. SAF., LICENSE CONTROL & DRIVER IMPROVEMENT DIV. 325 So. 2d 759 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1976
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Ridge Park v. Police Jury, Etc. 210 La. 351
- Cloud v. Dyess 172 So. 2d 528
- City of Lake Charles v. Lake Charles Ry., Light & Waterworks Co. 144 La. 217
- Silberman v. Beaubouef 175 So. 2d 873
Opinion text
231 So.2d 690 (1970) Mrs. Nicee T. MELANCON et al. v. ASSUMPTION PARISH POLICE JURY. No. 7849. Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit. February 2, 1970. Rehearing Denied March 9, 1970. Tom Phillips, Baton Rouge, for appellants. Risley Triche, Napoleonville, for appellee. Before LANDRY, SARTAIN and ELLIS, JJ. ELLIS, Judge. Plaintiffs are seeking to enjoin the Assumption Parish Police Jury from abolishing Hospital Service District No. 1 of the Parish of Assumption without first complying with certain provisions of the constitution and laws of this state requiring them to assume the debts and obligations of the District. Plaintiffs first obtained a temporary restraining order, and after a trial heard, in part, on affidavits and the pleadings, a preliminary injunction, preventing the defendants from dissolving the District prior to the final resolution of the issues presented by the case. From the judgment granting the preliminary injunction, the Police Jury has appealed. *691 It is undisputed that a majority of the members of the Assumption Parish Police Jury intend to vote to abolish the District, and are prevented from so doing by the injunction issued herein. It is also uncontradicted that the Board of Commissioners of the District have incurred certain debts, including attorney's, architect's and engineer's fees. From the pleadings, we gather that the defendants question the capacity of the plaintiffs to bring this suit, and the legality of the debts incurred by the District. They further claim that they are obligated by law to assume only the bonded indebtedness of the District in order to abolish it. All of these issues were referred to the merits by the trial judge. He was of the opinion that there was a satisfactory showing that the plaintiffs, particularly the District itself, would suffer irreparable injury if the District were dissolved prior to the resolution of the issues presented by this case. He granted the preliminary injunction on that ground alone. The defendants, in their specifications of error, complain that the preliminary injunction should not have been issued for the same reasons they are resisting the suit on the merits. As pointed out above, none of these issues have been decided by the trial judge. A preliminary injunction is interlocutory in nature, designed to preserve the status quo until a determination can be made on the merits of the controversy. It may issue on a prima facie showing by the plaintiff that he is entitled to the relief sought, and that he would suffer irreparable injury if it is not granted. Ridge Park v. Police Jury of Jerrerson Parish, 210 La. 351 , 27 So.2d 128 (1946); Cloud v. Dyess, 172 So.2d 528 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1965). "An irreparable injury is one for which the party injured cannot be compensated adequately in damages, or for which the damages cannot be measured by a pecuniary standard." City of Lake Charles v. Lake Charles Ry., Light & Waterworks Co., 144 La. 217 , 80 So. 260 (1918). The trial judge has broad discretion in determining whether to grant or refuse a preliminary injunction. Silberman v. Beaubouef, 175 So.2d 873 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1965). Considering all of the above, we think the trial judge acted within the bounds of his discretion in granting the preliminary injunction. The showing made by plaintiffs satisfies the requirements of the law for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. If the District were to be wrongfully dissolved by the Police Jury, the damage to it and the members of its governing body, all of whom are plaintiffs or intervenors herein, could not be measured by a pecuniary standard. It is undisputed that certain debts and obligations have been incurred, and a parcel of land donated to the District. The validity of these debts, which is disputed, can only be determined after a full hearing on the merits. We are aware that we have the authority to consider the issues raised by the parties to this appeal, although they have not been decided by the trial court. However, we feel, as did the trial judge, that these questions might best be resolved after a full hearing has been had on the merits. The judgment appealed from is affirmed. Defendant is condemned to pay the costs from which it is not exempt by law. Affirmed.