Opinion
No. 11634.
November 21, 1977. Rehearing Denied December 28, 1977. Writ Refused February 10, 1978.
APPEAL FROM NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF EAST BATON, ROUGE, STATE OF LOUISIANA, HONORABLE LUTHER F. COLE, J. P.
Joseph F. Keogh, Parish Atty., Baton Rouge, of counsel, for plaintiffs-appellees Greater Baton Rouge Airport District et al.
Ashton L. Stewart, Baton Rouge, of counsel, for defendants-appellants Mrs. Florence Hobgood Hays et al.
Before LOTTINGER, EDWARDS and PONDER, JJ.
Defendants appealed from a judgment denying interest on an expropriation award prior to the date of judgment.
The issue is the effect of concurring reasons given in the denial of a writ of certiorari or review. We affirm.
In October, 1972, plaintiff by agreement with the defendants entered on defendants' land to cut some trees in line with the runway at the Greater Baton Rouge Airport. In December, 1973, plaintiff filed an expropriation suit for an avigation servitude; this was granted in November, 1975. The judgment rejected defendants' demands for interest from October, 1972, but did allow interest from the date of filing of suit. This Court amended the judgment to allow interest from the date of judgment only. The Supreme Court acted on the application for writs as follows:
339 So.2d 431 (1st Cir. 1976).
"Writ denied. The result is correct.
Additional concurring reasons.
We construe the judgment of the Court of Appeal as an award of the avigation servitude to the plaintiffs and a money judgment in favor of defendants.
SUMMERS, J., concurring. I am of the opinion the money judgment awarded defendants the interest which defendants contend is due.
DENNIS, J., is of the opinion the writ should be granted."
La., 341 So.2d 403 (1977).
Defendants contend that this action had the effect of a summary judgment amending the decision of the Court of Appeal so as to allow them interest from October, 1972. The lower court did not agree nor do we.
Admittedly, the Supreme Court has supervisory power over all other courts. Its rules allow the grant of summary relief when a writ is granted. In the instant case, however, the writ was denied. The concurring additional reasons, even if subject to the interpretation made by defendants, do not outweigh the positive effect of:
Art. 5, Sec. 5(A), LSA Const. (1974): "Section 5. (A) * * * The Supreme Court has general supervisory jurisdiction over all other courts. It may establish procedural and administrative rules not in conflict with law.
Rule X, Sec. 3 of the Louisiana Supreme Court Rules: "Section 3. * * * * * * (b) At the time the writ is granted the court may order summary relief. * * *"
"Writ denied. The result is correct."
This left effective the judgment of the Court of Appeal allowing interest only from the date of judgment. The lower court was correct in denying the relief sought.
AFFIRMED.