Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Lott v. Haley, 370 So. 2d 521.

199 citing documents.

Sarah Allen Davidson v. Terrance Hardy La. 2026
2d 399, 408 (“[A] newly-created statute of prescription that ‘shortens existing periods of limitation will not violate the constitutional prohibition against divesting a vested right provided it allows a reasonable time for those affected by the act to assert their rights’.” ( (La.
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
Paul Fire & Marine, 609 So.2d at 816 n. 11
Succession Of Rosalie Handy Lewis And John Charles Lewis La. 2022
“[S]tatutes of limitation [the common- law analog to statutes of peremption or prescription] are remedial in nature and as such are generally accorded retroactive application.” (La.
Marcy Andre Barras v. Jason O'Rourke La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
Dean Born v. City of Slidell 180 So. 3d 1227 La. 2015
Co., Burmaster v. Gravity Drainage Dist.
Crescent Property Partners, LLC v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. 158 So. 3d 798 La. 2015
“[Statutes of limitation [the common-law analog to statutes of peremption or prescription] are remedial in nature and as such are generally accorded retroactive application.”
Crescent Property Partners, L.L.C. v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company, Bison Building Materials of Texas, Inc. C/W Greystar … La. 2015
“[S]tatutes of limitation [the common-law analog to statutes of peremption or prescription] are remedial in nature and as such are generally accorded retroactive application.” (La.
Church Mutual Insurance Co. v. Dardar 145 So. 3d 271 La. 2014
Id., Burmaster v. Gravity Drainage District No. 2, -10 (La.App.
Crescent Property Partners, LLC v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. 134 So. 3d 85 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
Ebinger , 10-2516, p. 7, 65 So.3d at 1285 ().
State v. Mahler 157 So. 3d 626 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 2013
Art. 6 {Pierce v. Hobart Carp., 939 F.2d 1305 ,1308 n. 3 (5th Cir.1991) ( )), which codifies the general rule against retroactive application of legislative enactments.
Succession of Ursin v. Board of Levee Commissioners 104 So. 3d 534 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
& Clinic, Burmaster v. Gravity Drainage Dist.
Succession of DiLeo 90 So. 3d 488 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2012
A law too cannot be applied retroactively if to do so would divest a person of a vested right and would be “in violation of the due process guarantees under the state and federal constitutions.”
Ebinger v. Venus Construction Corp. 65 So. 3d 1279 La. 2011
“[Statutes of limitation [the common-law analog to statutes of peremption or prescription] are remedial in nature and as such are generally accorded retroactive application.”
State Ex Rel. Ac v. Md 70 So. 3d 159 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2011
Falgout v. Dealers Truck Equipment Co., 98-3150, p. 11 (La.10/19/99), ; , Yet, even procedural laws are not accorded retroactive effect when such retroactivity would operate to unconstitutionally’ disturb vested rights.
Paragon Lofts Condominium Owners Ass'n v. Paragon Lofts, L.L.C. 55 So. 3d 970 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2011
Board of Ethics In re Davies 55 So. 3d 918 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Williams v. Manzella 21 So. 3d 1048 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
See Burmaster v. Plaquemines Parish Government, 2007-2432, p. 17 (La.5/21/08), ( (La.
Warren v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance Co. 21 So. 3d 186 La. 2009
which dealt directly with the retroactive application of La.Rev.Stat.
MJ Farms, Ltd. v. Exxon Mobil Corp. 998 So. 2d 16 La. 2008
Paul Fire & Marine, 609 So.2d at 816 n. 11
Borel v. Young 989 So. 2d 42 La. 2008
which dealt directly with the retroactive application of La.Rev.Stat.
Burmaster v. Plaquemines Parish Government 982 So. 2d 795 La. 2008
Burmaster v. Gravity Drainage District No. 2
Am. Home Assur. Co. v. LA. WORK. COMP. SECOND INJURY BD. 991 So. 2d 500 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
Patriot v. Mississippi Land Holdings 948 So. 2d 249 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
Derbes v. City of New Orleans 941 So. 2d 45 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2006
State v. All Prop. and Cas. Ins. Carriers 937 So. 2d 313 La. 2006
Chance v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 93-2582 p. 2 (La.4/11/94)
Wrm v. Hcv 923 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
App. 1 Cir.1986), writ denied, ().
W.R.M. v. H.C v. and M.J.V. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
1 Cir. 1986), writ denied, ().
W.R.M. v. H.C.V. 923 So. 2d 911 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
1 Cir.1986), writ denied, ().
Delbert W. Bush v. National Health Care of Leesville La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Bush v. National Health Care of Leesville 923 So. 2d 150 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
Helmers v. Fernandez Nursing Home, Inc. 914 So. 2d 556 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2005
Cheron v. LCS Corrections Services, Inc. 891 So. 2d 1250 La. 2005
Cheron, 02-1049 at 12, 872 So.2d at 1102.
Marsh Engineering, Inc. v. Ernest L. Parker La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
However, “[n]onetheless, a newly-created statute of limitation or one which shortens existing periods of limitation will not violate the constitutional prohibition against divesting a vested right provided it allows a reasonable time for those affected by the act to assert their rights.”
Marsh Engineering Inc. v. Parker 883 So. 2d 1119 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
However, "[n]onetheless, a newly-created statute of limitation or one which shortens existing periods of limitation will not violate the constitutional prohibition against divesting a vested right provided it allows a reasonable time for those affected by the act to assert their rights."
Melba Braud v. Dr. William A. Cenac La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2004
This inquiry requires consideration of the her education, intelligence, and the gravity of her condition, as well as the defendant’s conduct.17 Reasonability is a factual determination which an appellate court cannot disturb, absent a finding of manifest error.18 15 ().
Cheron v. LCS Corrections Services, Inc. 872 So. 2d 1094 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2004
Walker v. Bossier Medical Center 873 So. 2d 841 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2004
Walls v. American Optical Corp., 98-0455 (La.09/08/99), ; Crier, supra ; (La.
Eastin v. Entergy Corp. 865 So. 2d 49 La. 2004
Raymond v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 856 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
Falgout v. Dealers Truck Equipment Co., XXXX-XXXX p. 11 (La.10/19/99)
Ss v. State Ex Rel. Dept. of Social Servic. 831 So. 2d 926 La. 2002
Austin v. Abney Mills, Inc. 824 So. 2d 1137 La. 2002
& Clinic, Burmaster v. Gravity Drainage Dist.
Williams v. Holiday Inn Worldwide 816 So. 2d 998 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Sawicki v. K/S STAVANGER PRINCE 802 So. 2d 598 La. 2001
Paul Fire & Marine, 609 So.2d at 816 n. 11
Elevating Boats, Inc. v. St. Bernard Parish 795 So. 2d 1153 La. 2001
Co., 98-3150, p. 12 (La.10/19/99), -08
Creighton v. Bryant 793 So. 2d 275 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
Morial v. Smith & Wesson Corp. 785 So. 2d 1 La. 2001
Paul Fire & Marine, 609 So.2d at 816 n. 11; (La.
Bourgeois v. AP Green Industries, Inc. 783 So. 2d 1251 La. 2001
Paul Fire & Marine, 609 So.2d at 816 n. 11
Huddleston v. FARMERS-MERCH. BANK & TRUST 772 So. 2d 356 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2000
-524 (La.1979); see also Marsh Engineering, Inc. v. Parker, 94-1129 (La.App.