Cited by

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

199 citing documents.

Green v. Southern United Fire Ins. Co. 762 So. 2d 1156 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
-524 (La.1979), the supreme court stated: It is well established that statutes of limitation are remedial in nature and as such are generally accorded retroactive application.
Hendrick v. ABC Ins. Co. 760 So. 2d 650 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2000
Turnbull v. Thensted 757 So. 2d 145 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2000
Falgout v. Dealers Truck Equipment Co. 748 So. 2d 399 La. 1999
Matthews v. Fontenot 745 So. 2d 691 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1999
Leson Chevrolet, Inc. v. Triche 742 So. 2d 1047 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1999
5 Cir.1996), writs denied at
Walls v. American Optical Corp. 740 So. 2d 1262 La. 1999
& Clinic, Burmaster v. Gravity Drainage Dist.
Davis v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center 738 So. 2d 1191 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
Semien v. Pinac 745 So. 2d 632 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1999
-524 (La.1979), discussed the retroactive application of laws: [T]he general rule of prospective application applies only to substantive laws as distinguished from merely procedural or remedial laws which will be given retroactive effect in the absence of language showing a contrary intention.
Succession of Young 732 So. 2d 833 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
1st Cir.1990); -1193 (La.1987); -524 (La.1979); Cooper v. Lykes, 218 La.
Jamison v. Hilton 721 So. 2d 494 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
Faucheaux v. Alton Ochsner Med.
Quibodeaux v. Medical Center of Southwest Louisiana 707 So. 2d 1380 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
Quibodeaux v. MEDICAL CENTER OF SW LA. 707 So. 2d 1380 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1998
Sudwischer v. Estate of Huffpauir 705 So. 2d 724 La. 1997
Reeder v. North 701 So. 2d 1291 La. 1997
Lafayette Parish School Board, Sales Tax Division v. State ex rel. Department of Revenue & Taxation 701 So. 2d 734 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1997
Pierce [v. Hobart Corp., 939 F.2d 1305, 1308, n. 3 (5th Cir.1991) ]; Lott [v. Haley, ].
Batiste v. Capitol Home Health 699 So. 2d 395 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1997
Cameron Parish School Bd. v. Acands, Inc. 687 So. 2d 84 La. 1997
After a hearing on the exception, the trial court, relying on the court of appeal's statement in the instant case that "a defendant's right to assert the peremptory exception of prescription is a vested right" ("Statutes of limitation are remedial in nature and as such are generally accorded retroactive application...."
GBF v. Keys 687 So. 2d 632 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1997
Rusher v. Winningham Nissan Volvo, Inc., (La.App.
Gauthreaux v. Trosclair 676 So. 2d 213 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
See Abate v. Healthcare Intern., Inc., -79 (La.1985)
Marsh Engineering, Inc. v. Parker 688 So. 2d 1042 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1996
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."
Phillip v. Home Ins. Co. 671 So. 2d 943 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1996
Allen v. Carollo 674 So. 2d 283 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
1st Cir.), writ denied, reasoned that the statute provided a reasonable three-year grace period after its enactment within which pre-existing causes of action could be brought, and declined to find the statute unconstitutional on due process grounds.
Smith v. Fruehauf Trailer Operations 666 So. 2d 1246 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1996
Manuel v. La. Sheriff's Risk Mgmt. Fund 664 So. 2d 81 La. 1995
Smith, Pierce v. Hobart Corporation, 939 F.2d 1305 , 1308 n. 3 (5th Cir.1991); (La.App.
Guidry v. Bank of LaPlace 661 So. 2d 1052 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1995
[8] Ardoin v. Hartford Accident & Indem., (La.
Cameron Parish School Board v. Acands, Inc. 646 So. 2d 976 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
Branch v. Willis-Knighton Medical Center 636 So. 2d 211 La. 1994
See La.Civ.Code art. 3492 (1984), Revision Comments1983; R.J.
Wimberly v. Gatch 635 So. 2d 206 La. 1994
Chance v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. 635 So. 2d 177 La. 1994
Estate of Williams v. LOUISIANA OFFICE OF RISK MGT. 634 So. 2d 1260 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1994
Segura v. Frank 630 So. 2d 714 La. 1994
Co., Burmaster v. Gravity Drainage Dist.
Wimberly v. Gatch 621 So. 2d 633 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Rusher v. Winningham Nissan Volvo, Inc., (La.App.
Heirs of Viator v. Tri-Parish Investors, Ltd. 618 So. 2d 36 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Ward v. Abasi 616 So. 2d 778 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993
Bishop v. Simonton 615 So. 2d 8 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1993
Roger v. Dufrene 613 So. 2d 947 La. 1993
Bryant v. Heritage Life Ins. Co. 613 So. 2d 1044 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1993
See, Ardoin v. Hartford Accident & Indem.
Henderson v. Pacific Marine Ins. Co. 611 So. 2d 822 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
Smith v. MacArthur Surgical Clinic 610 So. 2d 245 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1992
St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Smith 609 So. 2d 809 La. 1992
Pierce v. Hobart Corp., 939 F.2d 1305 , 1308 n. 3 (5th Cir.1991) ( ).
Smith v. Alton Ochsner Medical Foundation 606 So. 2d 561 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 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.
Rice v. Sagrera 602 So. 2d 222 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
Cole v. Celotex Corp. 599 So. 2d 1058 La. 1992
Burmaster v. Gravity Drainage District No. 2, -10 (La.App.
Matherne v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 599 So. 2d 816 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1992
In re Medical Review Panel of Howard, 573 So.2d at 474
Lima v. Schmidt 595 So. 2d 624 La. 1992
See also Harvey v. Dixie Graphics, Inc. and Touche Ross & Co.
Harvey v. Dixie Graphics, Inc. 593 So. 2d 351 La. 1992
Graham v. ST. CHARLES GENERAL HOSP. 590 So. 2d 818 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1991
Ardoin v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.
Augustine v. Derronne 590 So. 2d 703 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1991