Cited by
Opinions in Louisiana that cite Ardoin v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 360 So. 2d 1331.
-
Guidroz v. Lewis
626 So. 2d 736
La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
Ardoin v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
-
Perez v. Allstate Insurance Co.
625 So. 2d 1067
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
4th Cir.1986) this court stated that an exception to the general rule of non-retroactivity exists in the case of “laws that suppress or lessen penalties”.
- Rey v. Guidry 618 So. 2d 425 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
- Ware v. Medical Protective Ins. Co. 621 So. 2d 54 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
- Bryant v. Heritage Life Ins. Co. 613 So. 2d 1044 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
-
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Smith
609 So. 2d 809
La. 1992
In so doing, the court of appeal quoted heavily from two of this court's opinions that address interpretive legislation: and Ardoin v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
-
Duncan ex rel. Hahn v. South Central Bell Telephone Co.
608 So. 2d 649
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
Ardoin v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., citing, 1 M. Planiol, Civil Law Treatise, Nos. 249-252 (La.St.L.Inst.Transl.1959), and A. Yianno-poulos, Civil Law System, 68 (1977).
-
Creed v. Avondale Industries, Inc.
608 So. 2d 226
La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
the Supreme Court was presented with the question of whether or not a statute establishing a burden of proof in malpractice actions should be given retrospective effect.
- Piazza v. Behrman Chiropractic Clinic, Inc. 601 So. 2d 1378 La. 1992
-
White v. WEST CARROLL HOSP., INC.
598 So. 2d 1134
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1992
art. 6; Ardoin v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., (La.
-
Crowley v. City of Lafayette
602 So. 2d 40
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Breazeale, supra; Ardoin v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., citing, 1 M. Planiol, Civil Law Treatise, Nos. 249-252 (La.St.L.Inst.
-
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Smith
596 So. 2d 272
La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Co., at 1338 (La.1978): "The general principle of non-retroactivity of laws is stated in Article 8 of the Civil Code, which provides: 'A law can prescribe only for the future; it can have no retrospective operation, nor can it impair the obligation of contracts.'
- Cole v. Celotex Corp. 599 So. 2d 1058 La. 1992
- Larocca v. Larocca 597 So. 2d 1000 La. 1992
-
Matter of Am. Waste & Pollution Control
597 So. 2d 1125
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
See Ardoin v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., (La.App.
-
Pullen v. Ziegler
595 So. 2d 1267
La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1992
It cites Ardoin v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, which states: The general principle of non-retroactivity of laws is stated in Article 8 of the Civil Code which provides: ‘A law can prescribe only for the future; it can have no retrospective operation, nor can it impair the obligation of contracts.’ According to civilian theory, however, the principle of n
-
Graham v. ST. CHARLES GENERAL HOSP.
590 So. 2d 818
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
Ardoin v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
- Yamaha Motor Corp. USA v. Bonfanti Industries, Inc. 589 So. 2d 575 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
-
Piazza v. Behrman Chiropractic Clinic, Inc.
588 So. 2d 1190
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
Ardoin v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
-
Marshall v. a & P Food Co. of Tallulah
587 So. 2d 103
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
Ardoin v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
- Utley-James v. State, Div. of Admin. 593 So. 2d 1261 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991
- Trans-Global Alloy v. First Nat. Bank 583 So. 2d 443 La. 1991
- Robbins Tire & Rubber v. Winnfield Retread 577 So. 2d 1189 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1991
- Parmelee v. Kline 579 So. 2d 1008 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1991
- Koslowski v. Sanchez 576 So. 2d 470 La. 1991
-
Putzeys v. Schreiber
576 So. 2d 563
La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
Ardoin v. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., Inc.
-
Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. v. Ronnie Bradford Insurance Agency
571 So. 2d 822
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
Ardoin v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
-
Carter v. Deitz
566 So. 2d 960
La. 1990
Additionally, the Court of Appeal relied on a questionable legal principle, the "locality" test
- Koslowski v. Sanchez 563 So. 2d 937 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
- Winstead v. Ed's Live Catfish & Seafood, Inc. 554 So. 2d 1237 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
-
Dance v. Dance
552 So. 2d 658
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1989
Co., General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Anzelmo, 222 La.
- Bourgeois v. Ochsner Foundation Hospital & Clinic 550 So. 2d 1229 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
-
Bourne v. Seventh Ward General Hosp.
546 So. 2d 197
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
See Ardoin v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
-
Archie v. BD. OF SUP'RS OF LA. STATE UNIV.
543 So. 2d 1348
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
App.3d Cir.1977), reversed on other grounds
- Ewing v. Aubert 532 So. 2d 876 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
-
Ogletree v. Willis-Knighton Memorial Hosp., Inc.
530 So. 2d 1175
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
Co., Thibodeaux v. Aetna Cas.
- Douzart v. Jones 528 So. 2d 602 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
- Stephens v. DeLoach 522 So. 2d 1373 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
- Sunlake Apartment Residents v. Tonti Development Corp. 522 So. 2d 1298 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
- Carter v. Louisiana State University 520 So. 2d 383 La. 1988
- Hunt v. Bd. of Sup'rs of La. State Univ. 522 So. 2d 1144 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1988
-
Guarisco v. Guarisco
526 So. 2d 1126
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Ardoin v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., Tullier, supra.
-
Guarisco v. Guarisco
526 So. 2d 1126
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1988
Ardoin v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., Tullier, supra.
- Jones v. Levy 520 So. 2d 457 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1988
- Leiva v. Nance 506 So. 2d 131 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1987
- Hastings v. Baton Rouge General Hospital 498 So. 2d 713 La. 1986
-
Boudreaux v. Panger
490 So. 2d 1083
La. 1986
-39 (La.1978), we found the original statute, R.S.
-
Producers Oil & Gas Co. v. Nix
488 So. 2d 1099
La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
1746 , 18 L.Ed.2d 954 (1967); Ardoin v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
- Butts v. Cummings 488 So. 2d 1169 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1986
-
Long v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.
487 So. 2d 732
La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
In Ardoin v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., the Louisiana Supreme Court held that the statute should be given retrospective effect and applied to facts which occurred prior to its adoption.