Legal Update: City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Louisiana East First Jurisdiction COGIC: Mandamus – an Inappropriate Procedure for Expropriation
Authors: Christopher K. LeMieux and Joshua R. Yeager
In a recent ruling out of the Louisiana First Circuit, City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge v. Louisiana East First Jurisdiction COGIC, 2024-1200 (La.App. 1 Cir. 7/11/25), 2025 WL 1913582, the court reversed and recalled the trial court’s granting of a petition for writ of mandamus that required the City of Baton Rouge and Parish of East Baton Rouge to make an offer in an expropriation matter – without the benefit of a full evidentiary proceeding – for the full amount of an appraisal obtained by the property owner.
Case Background
The case arose from a petition filed by the City/Parish on behalf of the Greater Baton Rouge Airport District, to expropriate four acres of a larger 30- acre tract of land owned by the Church of God in Christ Incorporated (“COGIC”) as part of a project to improve the Baron Rouge Metropolitan Airport. The trial court initially granted the City/Parish’s request and ordered that the City/Parish deposit just compensation in the amount of $175,587.00 into the court’s registry, and authorized the City/Parish to enter into and take the four-acre parcel.
Ultimately, COGIC made a demand for full acquisition of the entire 30-acre tract at price determined by a third-party appraisal. When the City/Parish was unable to meet the demand, COGIC filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking a writ requiring the City/Parish to make an offer for the full amount it believed to be just compensation. After a hearing on the matter in which the City/Parish objected to the trial court’s consideration of the appraisal as evidence, the trial court entered judgment granting COGIC’s petition for writ of mandamus and ordered the City/Parish to make a written offer to acquire the remaining property at an amount not less than the appraised value. The City/Parish appealed.
The City/Parish’s Successful Appeal
On appeal, the Louisiana Third Circuit reversed and recalled the trial court’s granting of COGIC’s petition for writ of mandamus. The court focused on longstanding jurisprudence in Louisiana that identifies a writ of mandamus as an extraordinary remedy to be issued only in cases where the law provides no relief by ordinary means or where delay in obtaining relief may cause injustice.
In context of expropriation cases, when a property owner challenges the amount deposited as just compensation, a greater value must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence, and the question of what damages will appropriately compensate a property owner is one of fact that is necessarily dependent on evidence presented by expert witnesses.
The Louisiana Third Circuit reasoned that COGIC’s utilization of the writ of mandamus negated the City/Parish’s ability to question the authors of the appraisals, or to call additional witnesses of its own. Ultimately, the question of just compensation, and the related legal issues as to whether the City/Parish must acquire the remaining Property, are more properly presented at a trial, rather than determined at a mandamus hearing.
Bottom Line
In prosecuting or defending an expropriation proceeding, this case highlights the fact that such proceedings must be tried in an ordinary proceeding and that mandamus remains an extraordinary remedy.
