Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Sawicki v. K/S STAVANGER PRINCE, 802 So. 2d 598.

37 citing documents.

Troy Parria v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
Troy Parria v. Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corporation La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2024
Douglas Bienvenu v. 1 and 2 87184 C/W John Doe v. 1 and 2 87515 La. 2024
12/7/01), (ellipses in original)).
Douglas Bienvenu v. 1 and 2 87184 C/W John Doe v. 1 and 2 87515 La. 2024
12/07/01), ) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
Succession Of Rosalie Handy Lewis And John Charles Lewis La. 2022
Jayson Doe v. Jesuit High School of New Orleans, and U.S. Central and Southern Province, Society of Jesus La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2021
Graver v. Leach 264 So. 3d 568 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2018
Succession of William Dalton Pelt La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
In re Pelt 244 So. 3d 476 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
New Orleans Fire Fighters Pension & Relief Fund v. City of New Orleans 242 So. 3d 682 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
In re Krebs Lasalle Lemieux Consultants, Inc. 215 So. 3d 939 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2017
Paul v. State, Department of Public Safety 182 So. 3d 178 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2015
does not constitute a vested right.” Church Mutual Insurance Company, 145 So.3d at 281 , quoting Sawicki v. K/S Stavanger Prince, 2001-0528 (La.12/7/01), , and Tennant v. Russell, 214 La.
Michel v. State, Division of Administrative Law 167 So. 3d 654 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Wooley, 944 So.2d at 674 (citing Sawicki v. K/S Stavanger Prince, 01-0528 (La.12/7/01), -05 ).
Lafayette Care Center v. Betty Mouton La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
12/7/01), -605), the supreme court specifically held that “It is well settled that, ‘no one has a vested right in any given mode of procedure.’” Therefore, LCC had no “vested right” to the procedure in place for filing of a Form 1008, Disputed Claim for Compensation, pursuant to the language in the 2012 amendment.
Lafayette Care Center v. Mouton 146 So. 3d 913 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Co. v. Dardar, 13-2351, p. 9 (La.5/7/14), (quoting Sawicki v. K/S Stavanger Prince, 01-0528, p. 10 (La.12/7/01), -605 ), the supreme court specifically held that “It is well settled that, ‘no one has a vested right in any given mode of procedure.’ ” Therefore, LCC had no “vested right” to the procedure in place for filing of a Form 1008, Disputed Claim for Compensation, pursuant to the language in the 2012 amendment.
Shelter Mutual Insurance Company v. Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. of Louisiana 148 So. 3d 871 La. 2014
art. 44(A) for employment contracts, allowing an employee to agree to a forum before the suit is filed, but only |4if done “after the occurrence of the incident which is the subject of the civil or administrative action.” In Sawicki v. K/S Stavanger Prince, 01-0528 (La.12/7/01), , we found that La.
Church Mutual Insurance Co. v. Dardar 145 So. 3d 271 La. 2014
does not constitute a vested right.” Sawicki v. K/S Stavanger Prince, 01-0528, p. 10 (La.12/7/01), , quoting Tennant v. Russell, 214 La.
Fidelak v. Holmes European Motors, L.L.C. 130 So. 3d 851 La. 2013
12/7/01), , this Court addressed the Lejano decision in light of the newly enacted statute.
James T. Patterson, Et Ux. v. Dillard Eugene Brazzel, Et Ux. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2011
Ebinger v. Venus Construction Corp. 65 So. 3d 1279 La. 2011
does not constitute a vested right.” Sawicki v. K/S Stavanger Prince, 01-0528 (La.12/7/01), (ellipses in original).
LA. STATE EMP. RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. McWilliams 996 So. 2d 1036 La. 2008
Sawicki v. K/S Stavanger Prince, XXXX-XXXX p. 10 (La.12/7/01), , citing Tennant v. Russell, 214 La.
MJ Farms, Ltd. v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 998 So. 2d 16 La. 2008
In support of their contention, defendants cite Sawicki v. K/S Stavanger Prince, 01-0528 (La.12/7/01), ("no one has a vested right in any given mode of procedure.").
Bell v. RIMKUS CONSULT. GROUP, INC. OF LA. 983 So. 2d 927 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2008
Sawicki v. K/S Stavanger Prince, 01-528, p. 12 (La.12/7/01), .
Wrm v. Hcv 951 So. 2d 172 La. 2007
Sawicki v. K/S Stavanger Prince, XXXX-XXXX (La.12/7/01), (Emphasis added).
Wooley v. AMCARE HEALTH PLANS OF LOUISIANA 944 So. 2d 668 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Sawicki v. K/S Stavanger Prince, XXXX-XXXX, pp. 7-8 (La.12/7/01), -05 , and the cases cited therein.
Dahiya v. Talmidge Intern. Ltd. 931 So. 2d 1163 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
While we acknowledge that the Louisiana Supreme Court did find in Sawicki v. K/S Stavanger Prince, that La.
Pamela Metoyer v. Roy O. Martin, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
12/7/01), explained that: [S]ubstantive laws are laws that impose new duties, obligations or responsibilities upon parties, or laws that establish new rules, rights and duties or change existing ones; procedural laws are those which prescribe a method for enforcing a substantive right and relate t
Metoyer v. Roy O. Martin, Inc. 895 So. 2d 552 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Sawicki v. K/S Stavanger Prince, 01-0528, p. 8 (La.12/7/01), -04 .
Tina Lynette Watkins, Etc. v. Lake Charles Memorial Hospital La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Watkins v. LAKE CHARLES MEMORIAL HOSP. 896 So. 2d 130 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
See Sawicki v. K/S Stavanger Prince, 01-0528 (La.12/7/01), .
Pamela Metoyer v. Roy O. Martin, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
Sola Communications, Inc. v. Tony Bailey La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
12/7/01), -04, the Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed the principles of the above classifications of legislation insofar as they relate to retroactivity, explaining: This court has held that substantive laws are laws that impose new duties, obligations or responsibilities upon parties, or laws that estab
Sola Communications, Inc. v. Bailey 861 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2003
In Sawicki v. K/S Stavanger Prince, 01-0528, p. 8 (La.12/7/01), -04 , the Louisiana Supreme Court reviewed the principles of the above classifications of legislation insofar as they relate to retroactivity, explaining: *828 This court has held that substantive laws are laws that impose new duties, obligations or responsibilities upon parties, or laws that establish new rules
Smith v. BD. OF TRUSTEES OF EMP. RETIREMENT 851 So. 2d 1100 La. 2003
Bourgeois v. Wiley 849 So. 2d 632 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2003
Sawicki v. K/S Stavanger Prince, XXXX-XXXX, p. 8 (La.12/7/01), ; Keith v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, 96-2075, p. 6 (La.5/9/97), .
Keramidas v. PROFILE SHIPPING LIMITED 832 So. 2d 314 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2002
5th Cir.4/11/01), in light of Sawicki v. K/S Stavanger Prince, 01-0528 (La.12/7/01), .
Keramidas v. Profile Shipping Ltd. 811 So. 2d 891 La. 2002
Case remanded to the Court of Appeal for consideration in light of Sawicki v. K/S Stavanger Prince, 01-0528 (La.12/7/01), .

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by