State ex rel. Department of Highways v. Terral

FRUGÉ, Judge

(dissenting).

A casual reading of the Resolution (quoted in the majority opinion) clearly indicates that the State intended to permit the defendant herein to file his answer any time before December 31, 1967, thereby giving him his day in court, in spite of the fact that his right to claim additional compensation against the State had lapsed under the mandate of R.S. 48:450 and 452. The intention of the Legislature therefore was to revest defendant with his right of action to seek additional compensation in this suit and to prevent the Department of Highways from posing any…