PELICAN OUTDOOR ADVERTISING INC v. STATE OF LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT BY AND THROUGH SHAWN WILSON IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT (2026)

The State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD), appeals a summary judgment in favor of Pelican Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (Pelican), declaring that Pelican's proposed billboard location was not within 500 feet of an interchange, an intersection at grade, or a safety rest area. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Pelican is in the business of constructing, maintaining, and operating outdoor advertising signs commonly known as billboards. DOTD processes applications for billboard permits, which are required prior to erecting a billboard in Louisiana, including locations alongside interstate highways. See La. R.S. 48:461.3(A).¹ On May 6, 2021, Pelican applied to DOTD for a billboard permit. The proposed location was in Tangipahoa Parish alongside westbound Interstate Highway 12 near a truck weigh station and 200 feet east of Hinson Road, which does not intersect the interstate. DOTD denied Pelican's permit application on May 20, 2021. DOTD stated that a billboard at that location would violate Louisiana Administrative Code (LAC) 70:III:§ 134(B)(2), in that the billboard would be within 500 feet of an interchange, intersection at grade, or safety rest area.² Pelican timely sought review with DOTD's permit review panel, which again denied the permit on February 16, 2022, for the same reason stated in the original permit denial but without any specific reference to the type of prohibited area at the location.

On April 22, 2022, Pelican filed a petition for declaratory judgment in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, naming DOTD as a defendant.³ Pelican sought a declaration that its proposed billboard location near the truck weigh station was not within 500 feet of an interchange, an intersection at grade, or a safety rest area and, thus, DOTD's denial of Pelican's billboard permit was erroneous as a matter of law.

Almost one year later, on February 23, 2023, Pelican filed a motion for summary judgment on its petition for declaratory judgment, along with a supporting affidavit of its president, John D. Jackson, III, and documents concerning the billboard permit process and various maps of the location attached. DOTD opposed the motion, arguing that genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether Pelican's proposed billboard location complied with DOTD's spacing requirements. In support, DOTD attached the affidavit of DOTD's Outdoor Advertising Program Manager, Denise Graves, and attachments of the permit process. This included a February 2, 2021 letter from Ms. Graves informing Pelican that a billboard could not be permitted at the proposed location because it would be adjacent to the interchange before the truck weigh station.

After Pelican filed a reply to DOTD's opposition, DOTD filed a supplemental opposition along with three affidavits purporting to support DOTD's contention that the proposed billboard location was within 500 feet of an intersection at grade (the intersection of the interstate and the access road to the truck weigh station). In a supplemental reply, Pelican objected to DOTD's evidence as having been improperly submitted with a supplemental opposition to Pelican's motion for summary judgment, citing La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(B).⁴ The district court denied Pelican's motion for summary judgment on July 19, 2023, and no party sought supervisory writs of review concerning that decision.

After more discovery and almost two years later, on June 13, 2025, Pelican filed a second motion for summary judgment that was essentially the same as its first motion. The second motion for summary judgment encompassed much of the same supporting evidence, along with an updated affidavit by Mr. Jackson. Additionally, Pelican submitted a copy of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) published by the Federal Highway Administration. DOTD did not file any opposition to the second motion for summary judgment. After a hearing, the district court granted Pelican's second motion for summary judgment and declared that the proposed billboard location was not within 500 feet of an interchange, an intersection at grade, or a safety rest area. A judgment was signed on August 11, 2025. DOTD appeals, arguing that the district court erred in granting a summary judgment on a mixed question of fact and law, erred in adopting an incorrect construction of the text of DOTD regulations, and erred in granting a successive motion for summary judgment on an issue previously denied.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

We first note that the denial of a motion for summary judgment is an interlocutory judgment that is appealable only when expressly provided by law and is subject to revision at any time prior to final judgment on the matter. Alvin Fairburn & Associates, LLC v. Harris, 2020-1292 (La. App. 1 Cir. 10/4/21), 2021 WL 4551123, *3. Therefore, a district court may consider a re-urged motion for summary judgment after prior motions for summary judgment on the same issue have been denied. Trigg v. Pennington Oil Co., Inc., 2001-2822 (La. App. 1 Cir. 11/8/02), 835 So.2d 845, 846-847. Consideration of a subsequent motion for summary judgment is allowed when the mover files new evidence as well as when the mover files the same evidence. Alvin Fairburn & Associates, LLC, 2021 WL 4551123 at *3. Accordingly, the district court did not err in considering Pelican's second motion for summary judgment after having previously denied the first motion.

The character of Pelican's underlying action is one for declaratory judgment; however, the judgment before this court on appeal was rendered pursuant to a motion for summary judgment regarding Pelican's request for a declaration concerning the proposed location for its billboard. Thus, our review is de novo, pursuant to the summary judgment standard of review, using the same standards applicable to the district court's determination of the issues. See Marco Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Department of Transportation and Development, 2021-0123 (La. App. 1 Cir. 7/13/21), 329 So.3d288, 298, writ denied, 2021-01195 (La. 11/10/21), 326 So.3d 1247; Louisiana Hospital Association v. State, 2013-0579 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/30/14), 168 So.3d 676,684-685, writ denied, 2015-0215 (La. 5/1/15), 169 So.3d 372. No prohibition exists against the granting of a summary judgment in an action for declaratory judgment. Marco Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 329 So.3d at 299. See also Cope v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and A&M College, 2025-0034 (La. App. 1 Cir. 8/4/25), 418 So.3d 1035, 1039 (declaratory judgment can be resolved through the summary judgment procedure where appropriate).

A motion for summary judgment is a procedural device used when there is no genuine issue of material fact for all or part of the relief prayed for by a litigant. Bayou Canard, Inc. v. State through Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, 2017-1067 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/14/18), 250 So.3d 981, 985, writ denied, 2018-0965 (La. 10/29/18), 254 So.3d 1209. The burden of proof rests with the mover. Nevertheless, if the mover will not bear the burden of proof at trial on the issue that is before the court on the motion for summary judgment, the mover's burden on the motion does not require him to negate all essential elements of the adverse party's claim, action, or defense, but rather to point out to the court the absence of factual support for one or more elements essential to the adverse party's claim, action, or defense. The burden is on the adverse party to produce factual support sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact or that the mover is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(D)(1). We may consider only those documents specifically filed or referenced in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment, even if other possibly relevant documents appear elsewhere in the record. See La. Code Civ. P. art. 966 (D)(2) & Comments – 2015, comment (k); Duran v. Roul's Deli Juicy Juicy, L.L.C., 2021-1600 (La. App. 1 Cir. 8/8/22), 348 So.3d 735, 737.

A genuine issue is one as to which reasonable persons could disagree; if reasonable persons could only reach one conclusion, there is no need for trial on that issue, and summary judgment is appropriate. Tronsoco v. Point Carr Homeowners Association, 2022-0530 (La. App. 1 Cir. 1/10/23), 360 So.3d 901, 914. A fact is material when its existence or nonexistence may be essential to the plaintiff's cause of action under the applicable theory of recovery; a fact is material if it potentially insures or precludes recovery, affects a litigant's ultimate success, or determines the outcome of the legal dispute. Evans v. Abubaker, Inc., 2023-00955 (La. 5/10/24), 384 So.3d 853, 858. Because it is the applicable substantive law that determines materiality, whether a particular fact in dispute is material can only be seen in light of the substantive law applicable to the case. Cope, 418 So.3d at 1039.

As previously noted, Pelican's motion for summary judgment is based on a request for declaratory judgment. Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1871 authorizes the judicial declaration of “rights, status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed.” A person is entitled to relief by declaratory judgment when his rights are uncertain or disputed in an immediate and genuine situation, and the declaratory judgment will remove the uncertainty or terminate the dispute. Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government v. Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, 2021-0486 (La. App. 1 Cir. 12/30/21), 340 So.3d 940, 944. Additionally, there must exist a concrete, justiciable controversy framing the facts in order to avoid the rendering of an advisory opinion. Id. A “justiciable controversy” connotes an existing actual and substantial dispute, as distinguished from one that is merely hypothetical or abstract, and a dispute that involves the legal relations of parties with real adverse interests, upon which the judgment of the court may effectively operate through a decree or conclusive character. Id. Finally, a declaratory judgment is one that simply establishes the rights of the parties or expresses the opinion of the court on a question of law, without ordering anything to be done, and its distinctive characteristic is that the declaration stands by itself with no executory process following as a matter of course. Louisiana Hospital Association, 168 So.3d at 684. Further, the declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree. Marco Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 329 So.3d at 299.

After a thorough review of the record before us, we find that the material facts of this case are not in dispute. When summary judgment is granted in the context of statutory interpretation, or in this instance the interpretation of a DOTD regulation, there are no material issues of fact in dispute. See Marco Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 329 So.3d at 299. The real issue before us is whether the district court correctly interpreted the law applying to the spacing of billboard signs. Appellate review of questions of law is simply a review of whether the district court was legally correct or legally incorrect. Louisiana Hospital Association, 168 So.3d at 685.

Our interpretation of the relevant language in the DOTD regulation of spacing for billboards is guided by well-established rules of statutory construction. Marco Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 329 So.3d at 299. The starting point for interpretation of any law must be the language itself. Id. When a law is clear and unambiguous and its application does not lead to absurd consequences, the law shall be applied as written and no further interpretation may be made in search of the intent of the law. La. Civ. Code art. 9; Marco Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 329 So.3d at 299. It is presumed that every word, sentence, or provision in the law was intended to save some useful purpose, and that no unnecessary words or provisions were used. Id. Additionally, when the law specifically enumerates a series of things, the omission of other items, which could have been easily included in the law, is deemed to be intentional. Id. at 300.

As we noted in Marco Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 329 So.3d at 300, in an effort to control outdoor advertising in areas adjacent to the Interstate and Primary Highway Systems within Louisiana, the legislature enacted La. R.S. 48:461.3, authorizing DOTD to promulgate regulations governing the issuance of permits for the erection and maintenance of billboards and mandating compliance with federal and state law. See also La. R.S. 48:461.⁵ DOTD's administrative rules and regulations concerning the procedures and policies for issuing permits for billboards are contained hi the LAC regulations.

The regulation specifically at issue in this case is the control and spacing of billboards outside of incorporated cities found at LAC 70:III:§ 134(B)(2), providing that “[o]utside of incorporated villages, towns and cities, no structure may be located adjacent to or within 500 feet of an interchange, intersection at grade, or safety rest area.” The definitions section for LAC Title 70, Part III, is found at LAC 70:III:§ 127, but only “Safety Rest Area” is defined in that section as follows: “an area or site established and maintained within or adjacent to the highway right-of-way by or under public supervision or control for the convenience of the traveling public.” Another definition for “Safety Rest Area” is located at LAC 70:II:§ 505(A), stating “a roadside area with parking facilities separated from the roadway provided for motorists to stop and rest for short periods. It may include drinking water, toilets, tables and benches, telephones, information and other facilities for travelers.” The definition for an “Interchange” is discovered in LAC 70:II:§ 505(A), which provides that an interchange is “a grade-separated intersection with one or more turning roadways for travel between intersecting legs.” The only reference to “Intersection at Grade” in the DOTD regulations is found in the definition of “Access Connection” in LAC 70:II:§ 505(A), providing: “any roadway facility by means of which vehicles can enter or leave a highway. Included are intersections at grade, private driveways, and ramps or separate lanes connecting with cross streets or frontage roads.” (Emphasis added.)

A truck weigh station is not defined in the DOTD administrative rules or in the LAC regulations and, thus, is not readily connected to any of the terms outlined in DOTD's spacing requirements for billboards. The access lane to the truck weigh station on and off of Interstate 12 could arguably be considered an “access connection” pursuant to the definition provided in LAC 70:II:§ 505, in that there is a separate lane provided for entrance and exit to the truck weigh station. However, that lane is not used to connect with any cross street or frontage road. Moreover, an “access connection” is not one of the enumerated terms outlined in the 500-foot spacing requirement in DOTD's billboard regulations. See LAC 70:III:§ 134(B)(2). The omission of access connections and truck weigh stations from the list of enumerated prohibited locations for billboards in DOTD's 500-foot spacing regulation is presumed to be intentional. See Marco Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 329 So.3d at 300.

Furthermore, the undisputed facts submitted with Pelican's second motion for summary judgment included:

• Pelican's proposed billboard location is approximately 521 feet past the point on west-bound Interstate 12 where the third lane, that allows entry to the Weigh Station, begins. (Citing ¶8 of Mr. Jackson's affidavit.)

• There is no “safety rest area” anywhere near Pelican's proposed billboard location. (Citing DOTD's list of safety rest areas, Exhibit 13 attached to Mr. Jackson's affidavit.)

• There is no “interchange” anywhere near Pelican's proposed billboard location, as there is only one level of highway. (Citing LAC 70:II:§ 505(A).)

• The first alleged “intersection” is the point at which the third lane of Interstate 12 allowing entry to the Weigh Station begins. (Citing Exhibit 12, ¶22 of Mr. Jackson's affidavit.)

• Pelican's proposed billboard location is 521 feet past the first alleged “intersection,” where the third lane of Interstate 12 begins. (Citing ¶8 of Mr. Jackson's affidavit.)

Based upon these undisputed facts, the district court reasonably declared that Pelican's proposed billboard location is not within 500 feet of an interchange, an intersection at grade, or a safety rest area. In short, Pelican submitted valid summary judgment evidence establishing the declaration made by the district court.

CONCLUSION

For the outlined reasons, we affirm the district court's August 11, 2025 judgment that granted summary judgment in favor of Pelican Outdoor Advertising, Inc., and declared that Pelican Outdoor Advertising, Inc.’s proposed billboard location is not within 500 feet of an interchange, an intersection at grade, or a safety rest area. Appeal costs in the amount of $3,402.00 are assessed against the State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development.

AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Louisiana Revised Statutes 48:461.3(A) provides, in pertinent part:[DOTD] is hereby authorized to promulgate regulations governing the issuance of permits ․ for the erection and maintenance of outdoor advertising ․ consistent with the safety and welfare of the traveling public, and as may be necessary to cany out the policy of the state ․, and consistent with the national standards․ pursuant to [23 U.S.C.A. § 101 et seq].

2.   DOTD's denial letter also referenced LAC 70:III:§ 135(D), which provides the system for measuring the spacing. The actual spacing regulation found in LAC 70:III:§ 134(B)(2) provides:[O]utside of incorporated villages, towns and cities, no structure may be located adjacent to or within 500 feet of an interchange, intersection at grade, or safety rest area.

3.   Pelican also filed an amended petition for declaratory judgment with attachments on September 22, 2022, in response to DOTD's peremptory exceptions raising the objections of no cause of action and no right of action.

4.   Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 966(B) requires all documents or other attachments in a summary judgment proceeding to be submitted with the motion for summary judgment or with the opposition to the motion for summary judgment. No additional documents may be filed with a reply memorandum. La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(B)(3).

5.   Louisiana Revised Statutes 48:461 declares policy as follows:The Legislature finds and declares that outdoor advertising ․ [is a] legitimate commercial [use] of private property and, for the purpose of promoting the public safety, health, welfare, convenience and enjoyment of public travel․ it is hereby declared to be in the public interest to regulate and restrict the erection and maintenance of outdoor advertising ․ in areas adjacent to the Interstate and Primary Highway Systems within this State.

WOLFE, J.