Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Times Picayune Publishing Corp. v. City of New Orleans
Citations: 760 So. 2d 375; 99 La.App. 4 Cir. 1685; 2000 La. App. LEXIS 670; 2000 WL 310407Docket: No. 99-CA-1685
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; February 22, 2000; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
The Times-Picayune Publishing Corporation seeks a court declaration that New Orleans City Code Sections 2-6 and 2-9 are illegal, asserting that any actions taken by the City under these provisions are void. The plaintiff also requests an injunction to prevent the City from accepting bids related to its Proposal No. FTC-2946 for the official journal. The appeal follows a judgment that denied the relief sought. The Times-Picayune argues that the City’s local requirements for official journal publication undermine mandatory state law standards and raises two primary contentions: first, that LSA-R.S. 43:141 A does not exempt Orleans Parish from the standards applicable to other parishes; and second, that the City’s standards are unreasonable and violate due process. The trial court ruled in favor of the City, affirming that Orleans Parish is exempt from state standards regarding official journals. The key legal question centers on whether the exemption for the "parish of Orleans" in LSA-R.S. 43:141 A applies to the entire statutory scheme for official journals or merely to the timing of the selection process. The court concluded that the exemption excludes Orleans Parish from the state requirements for official journals, as the language positioning indicates it applies broadly to all statutory obligations regarding official journals, not just the timing of their selection. Thus, the court affirmed the City’s authority to establish its own standards. LSA-R.S. 43:141 and related statutes establish distinct provisions for judicial advertisements and legal notices in Louisiana, specifically differentiating the parish of Orleans from others. LSA-R.S. 43:201 explicitly states that all parishes except Orleans are governed by its provisions, while LSA-R.S. 43:202 mandates the selection of a newspaper for judicial notices in Orleans to occur in June. This indicates that the exception for Orleans in LSA-R.S. 43:141 A is not limited to timing. The Times-Picayune's assertion that LSA-R.S. 43:145 requires the City of New Orleans to choose a newspaper as its Official Journal is misinterpreted; a closer reading reveals that LSA-R.S. 43:145 outlines geographic requirements for official journals and does not apply to the City's journal. The statute necessitates that municipalities select a journal published within their boundaries, or, if none exists, one from within the parish. LSA-R.S. 43:146 further clarifies that if no suitable newspaper is available within the municipality or parish, one from an adjoining parish may be selected. Thus, LSA-R.S. 43:145 is contextualized as setting geographic limits rather than imposing state standards on the City and does not override the exemption provided in LSA-R.S. 43:141 A. The LSA-R.S. 43:141 A exemption for the parish of Orleans applies throughout the entire legal framework concerning official journals, effectively superseding subsequent provisions. This exemption does not conflict with later statutes but rather establishes a specific exception. The Times-Picayune argues that historical regulations demonstrate consistent state standards for official publications since the mid-19th century, but the analysis reveals disagreement with this interpretation. Historical acts, particularly Act 138 of 1894, clarify that the exemption for Orleans is broader than just meeting date exceptions, as indicated in the preamble. Subsequent acts, including Act 184 of 1908 and Act 141 of 1912, further emphasize Orleans' unique status among parishes, underscoring that its inclusion in broader statutory language was intentional to highlight its distinct treatment. The historical perspective confirms that for over a century, Orleans has been recognized as a special case. Additionally, the Yoes v. St. Charles Parish Council case does not support The Times-Picayune's claim regarding the violation of state police powers, as it pertains specifically to St. Charles Parish, which lacks a comparable exemption like that of Orleans. Yoes is determined to be legally distinguishable, as the City is found to be exempt from the state regulatory framework governing official journals under LSA-R.S. 43:141 A. The City can establish its own reasonable standards for an official journal as permitted by its Home Rule Charter. There is no evidence indicating the City lacks the competence to do so. Consequently, the City is deemed exempt from the stipulations in LSA-R.S. 43:140 et seq. The analysis proceeds to evaluate the reasonableness of the City's proposed standards against due process requirements. The Times-Picayune references multiple constitutional and statutory provisions that imply the City must maintain an official journal compliant with LSA-R.S. 43:140 et seq. However, the City asserts it has an official journal and has developed reasonable standards for it while claiming exemption from state requirements. Under Section 3-122 of the Home Rule Charter, the Clerk of Council is tasked with annually contracting for the official journal's publication to the lowest bidder. The ordinance will define the journal's requirements, including acceptance of publications from City officials at the same rates. The Council may also authorize electronic publication unless state law prohibits it. Section 3-123 mandates prompt publication of all ordinances in the official journal and allows for publication of various official acts. The Times-Picayune argues that because notices in the official journal may impact residents beyond the parish, the City lacks authority to set its own standards. They assert that adherence to state standards ensures broader awareness of published matters. However, the argument overlooks that residents outside New Orleans, as well as those from other states, may have interests in the official journal's contents, and their due process rights must also be considered. The Times-Picayune contends that LSA-R.S. 43:140 et seq. aimed to ensure distribution beyond local jurisdictions, yet the statute lacks specific distribution or minimum circulation requirements. Concerns regarding publication regulations are limited to specific provisions dictating where each parish's official journal must be published, with no stipulations on distribution, circulation, or publication frequency. The Times-Picayune's assertion that state statutes aim to establish standards for distribution and circulation lacks support in LSA-R.S. 43:140 et seq. Additionally, when property deprivation raises due process issues, specific statutes govern publication for the City. LSA-R.S. 43:81 mandates that the state's official journal be published only in Baton Rouge with a minimum paid circulation of ten thousand. This implies that the official journal's reach is limited, requiring interested individuals to proactively seek access rather than ensuring broad dissemination. The Times-Picayune references Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank to argue that city-prescribed notice violates due process, while state standards do not. However, the court in Parkview Oak Subdivision Corp. noted that due process requires notice reasonably calculated to inform affected parties, emphasizing that state requirements in LSA-R.S. 43:140 et seq. are not inherently superior to those of the City. The adequacy of public notice depends on the specific circumstances and whether more direct alternatives are available, such as mailing notice to identifiable parties. For matters not necessitating actual notice, such as ordinances affecting the public, the City’s publication requirements are deemed equally reasonable as those of the State. No publishing method can ensure that an official journal reaches all potentially affected individuals, leading to the conclusion that The Times-Picayune's due process claims lack merit. The court acknowledges the advantages of making the official journal available through paid subscriptions, which ensures a more reliable distribution compared to free copies that may be hoarded. Nonetheless, the court emphasizes that it is not its role to legislate, and as long as city ordinances are reasonable, they will not be challenged. The court finds the city's requirement of a minimum circulation of 10,000 to be rational compared to LSA-R.S. 43:142, which does not set a minimum. The Times-Picayune's argument for a five-year publication history as a safeguard against political retribution is noted, but the court points out that the city's two-year requirement aligns with state law, LSA-R.S. 43:81, which also mandates only a two-year history. There is no evidence of bad faith on the city's part in establishing or implementing these requirements. The city aims to promote competitive bidding, countering The Times-Picayune's implied desire to maintain monopolistic standards. While public bidding is important, the court reaffirms that press freedom and due process are even more critical to democracy. There is no evidence or presumption that the City will apply its official journal policies differently than the state statutes governing official journals in other parishes. The state law (LSA-R.S. 43:142) mandates that parish official journals be published in a physical office within the parish, but this does not necessarily enhance the journal's circulation or effectiveness for public notification. The Times-Picayune advocates for uniform state standards to improve public notice dissemination, yet no specific state requirements enhance publication effectiveness. The state law allows for a municipal journal to have an office in the municipality, disregarding that a nearby urban newspaper could have a larger circulation in a smaller suburb than a local journal. Additionally, LSA-R.S. 43:81 does not impose advertising requirements on state official journals, while LSA-R.S. 43:140(3) specifies that municipal and parish journals must not be primarily advertising-focused and must maintain certain publication standards. The City similarly restricts its Official Journal to not exceeding 75% advertising in over half of the issues from the previous year and mandates that content not primarily concern advertisers. The City's criteria are not deemed irrational compared to state or other parish requirements. Unlike state journals, the City mandates that its journal cannot be affiliated with a non-publishing business. The state requires a second-class mailing permit without a time constraint, while parish journals must have had a permit for five consecutive years prior to selection. The City requires a mailing permit from a post office within its jurisdiction, which is reasonable given the absence of a time requirement at the state level. The Times-Picayune cites LSA-R.S. 43:140(3)(b), which requires parish journals to cover local public meetings and events; however, since the state journal does not have a similar requirement, this does not invalidate the City's standards. The Times-Picayune also argues that the City’s plan to publish notices in the New Orleans Register instead of the Official Journal violates LSA-R.S. 43:143, but this statute does not apply to Orleans Parish due to a specific exception (LSA-R.S. 43:141 A). Therefore, the allegation that the City's actions would violate state law is unfounded. The City has not yet attempted to publish in a manner that contravenes existing regulations. Although there is a possibility of a statute mandating publication in an Official Journal, the City Charter Section 3-122 establishes a presumption that the City will comply with its provisions, which allow for publication in a register unless state law dictates otherwise. City Code 2-9 outlines the requirements for the New Orleans Register, including availability through subscription and library access. Without contrary evidence, it is assumed that the City will adhere to these standards. The Times-Picayune's arguments against the New Orleans Register lack merit, particularly regarding the alleged inconsistency with the Home Rule Charter's stipulations on joint ventures and lowest bids. The Times-Picayune claims that the Charter's language prohibits joint ventures due to the differentiation of articles 'the' and 'a', but fails to demonstrate how this would adversely affect the public. In fact, a joint venture could enhance public choice without compromising required standards. While the Times-Picayune correctly notes that combining bids for Official Journal and display notices could lead to non-compliance with the lowest bidder requirement, this has not yet occurred, and no evidence suggests the City intends to do so. Therefore, this argument is also deemed without merit. The court emphasizes the need for judicial restraint to maintain the separation of powers, affirming that the City's ordinances do not violate due process. Upon reviewing the City’s regulations against state and parish standards, the court finds no unreasonable actions or overreach by the City. The judgment of the trial court is thus affirmed. Additionally, historical context regarding LSA-R.S. 43:141 reinforces the City's position that its provisions apply to the 'parish of Orleans'.