Opinion
*1 Writ application denied.
Cole, J., would grant in part and assigns reasons.
Penzato, J., would grant in part for the reasons assigned by Cole, J.
COLE, J., would grant in part and assigns reasons.
Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 927(A)(5) permits a peremptory exception to raise the objection of no cause of action “in part, as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims, demands, issues, or theories against a party....” I would grant this writ in part, finding that the peremptory exception of no cause of action filed by the Bienville Parish Police Jury (“BPPJ”) should have been granted in part.
First, La. R.S. 3:2731 provides that parishes and municipalities “may adopt ordinances regulating dogs running at large” or regulating or prohibiting dangerous dogs. That provision is permissive, not mandatory. La. R.S. 1:3 (“The word ‘shall’ is mandatory and the word ‘may’ is permissive.”). Therefore, the trial court correctly sustained BPPJ's exception on this ground and I would reverse the court of appeal on this issue.
Second, La. R.S. 3:2773(B) provides certain law enforcement agencies shall seize dogs running at large. The BPPJ is not one of those listed law enforcement authorities. Importantly, this incident occurred in the Town of Ringgold, and it remains a defendant. Louisiana law treats parishes and municipalities as separate political subdivisions with separate spheres of authority, not as bodies with coextensive power within municipal limits. A parish has responsibilities within a municipality only if provided by statute, but its general police power is otherwise limited to the unincorporated areas of the parish.1 Municipalities and parishes may act jointly, but that requires either statutory authorization or joint agreement. La. R.S. 33:1324. Accord State v. Meche, 98-327 (La. App. 3 Cir. 12/16/98), 724 So. 2d 847, 850 (a parish has no general authority to enforce parish ordinances within an incorporated municipality absent some specific source of authority). Nothing pled here provides a basis for any liability on the Parish for making or enforcing the animal laws within the municipality of Ringgold. Therefore, I would also find the trial court correctly held that the plaintiffs failed to state any cause of action related to the BPPJ's failure to seize the dogs on this ground.
Third, La. R.S. 3:2774 provides that “[e]ach parish shall provide suitable shelters or facilities for dogs seized under the provisions of this Part.” The parties dispute whether La. R.S. 3:2774 mandates that a suitable facility be provided in advance of seizure of any dog. I agree with the denial of the writ on this point, as I find this issue more appropriately addressed by summary judgment. La. Code Civ. P. art. 966. I therefore concur in the writ denial in part but would reverse the court of appeal to grant the exceptions in part, as explained above.
All Citations
--- So.3d ----, 2026 WL 820175 (Mem), 2025-01561 (La. 3/25/26)
Footnotes
1 La. R.S. 33:361 vests the general police power within a municipality to its municipal government. This Court has stated that “a parish's powers were limited to those conferred by Constitution or legislature.” American Waste and Pollution Control Co. v. St. Martin Parish Police Jury, 609 So. 2d 201 (La. 1992).