Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Lovell v. Lovell, 378 So. 2d 418.

49 citing documents.

Ngoc Troung v. Marcus Dewayne Sanders and Old American Indemnity Company La. 2025
Graphic Packaging International, LLC v. ARCO National Construction Company, LLC La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2024
Bozeman v. UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION 70 So. 3d 169 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2011
Previously, the court had noted the specific factors which should be considered in determining whether a decision should be given retroactive effect, determining that: (1) the decision to be applied non-retroactively [i.e., prospectively] must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent
Alvarez v. LeBlanc 31 So. 3d 1120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
Fountain v. LaVigne 980 So. 2d 136 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2008
citing Chevron Oil Company v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97 , 92 S.Ct.
Kenny Ray Juneau v. State of Louisiana La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2007
Because of the Louisiana Supreme Court’s silence, should we attempt to determine whether Colvin is to be applied retroactively, -422 (La.1979): In determining whether or not our decision should be given retroactive effect, three factors should be considered: (1) the decision to be applied nonretroactively must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have re
Juneau v. State 956 So. 2d 728 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2007
Because of the Louisiana Supreme Court’s silence, should we attempt to determine whether Colvin is to be applied retroactively, -422 (La.1979): In determining whether or not our decision should be given retroactive effect, three factors should be considered: (1) the decision to be applied nonretroac-tively must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, or by deciding an
Clark v. Legion Insurance Co. 947 So. 2d 110 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
Bush v. National Health Care of Leesville 939 So. 2d 1216 La. 2006
Willis-Knighton Medical v. Sales Tax Com'n 903 So. 2d 1071 La. 2005
this court set forth the following criteria for determining whether a judicial decision should be accorded prospective effect only: (1) the decision to be applied nonretroactively must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants have relied, or by deciding
Young v. Christus Schumpert Medical Center 902 So. 2d 1180 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2005
Sherman v. Touro Infirmary Hospital 832 So. 2d 334 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2002
Chauvin v. Sisters of Mercy Health System, St. Louis, Inc. 818 So. 2d 833 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2002
Deville v. Technical Resource 799 So. 2d 800 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
the court explained the criteria which should be considered in determining whether a judicial decision should be made nonretroactive: (1) [T]he decision to be applied non-retroactively must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, or by
Wilson ex rel. Wilson v. Landry 748 So. 2d 655 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1999
The trial court erred in failing to conduct an analysis of the retroactive application of Lugenbuhl v. Dowling [, 96-1575 (La.10/10/97), ,] as set for[th] in Magee [,] supra, Lovell[ v. Lovell, ] and Chevron [Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97 , 92 S.Ct.
McAlpine v. McAlpine 679 So. 2d 85 La. 1996
Wheeler v. Louisiana Department of Transportation & Development 675 So. 2d 788 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
(Supreme court gave limited retroactive effect to which declared unconstitutional La.Civ.Code art. 919.); (supreme court did not give retroactive application to their decision which declared La.Civ.Code art. 160 unconstitutional.)
Magee v. Landrieu 653 So. 2d 62 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
(Supreme court gave limited retroactive effect to which declared unconstitutional La.Civ.Code art. 919.); (supreme court did not give retroactive *66 application to their decision which declared La.Civ.Code art. 160 unconstitutional.)
Cole v. Celotex Corp. 599 So. 2d 1058 La. 1992
349 , 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971), that a judicial decision will be given nonretroactive application when certain factors are present.
Citicorp Acceptance Co. v. Gelpi 563 So. 2d 427 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1990
In reaching our holding in Stafford , (La.
Devereux v. Allstate Ins. Co. 557 So. 2d 1091 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1990
LA. MATERIALS CO., INC. v. Atlantic Richfield Co. 486 So. 2d 776 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1986
Sibley v. Bd. of Sup'rs of Louisiana State University 477 So. 2d 1094 La. 1985
1979); instead, opting for a uniform standard of judicial review which all legislation is to be judged under (a substantial furtherance of a legitimate "state purpose" test).
Faucheaux v. ALTON OCHSNER MEDICAL FOUNDATION HOSP. & CLINIC 468 So. 2d 720 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1985
The proper analysis to be used in determining whether a
Teasdel v. Teasdel 454 So. 2d 886 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1984
Crosby v. Crosby 434 So. 2d 162 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1983
251 , 30 L.Ed.2d 225 ; in which the Supreme Court of Louisiana found LSA-C.C.
Thoreson v. DEPT. OF ST. CIVIL SERVICE 433 So. 2d 184 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983
349 , 30 L.Ed.2d 296 (1971); Succession of Clivens, on rehearing, (La.App.
Succession of Clivens 426 So. 2d 585 La. 1983
Harlaux v. Harlaux 426 So. 2d 602 La. 1983
1897 , 23 L.Ed.2d 647 (1969)
Wood v. Wood 424 So. 2d 1143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
1488 , 59 L.Ed.2d 766 ; overruled on other grounds, : "...
Cox v. Cox 426 So. 2d 656 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
as standing for the proposition that certain factors will determine whether or not a decision should be given retroactive effect, to-wit: "In determining whether or not our decision should be given retroactive effect, three factors should be considered: (1) the decision to be applied nonretroactively must e
Whipple v. Whipple 424 So. 2d 263 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1982
1102 , 59 L.Ed.2d 306 (1979)
Terjersen v. Terjersen 420 So. 2d 704 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
160, because it provided alimony only for wives, only from husbands.
Adoption of Meaux 417 So. 2d 522 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
at 422 (La.1979) and Geny, Method of Interpretation (La.
Matter of Succession of Layssard 412 So. 2d 135 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1982
the Supreme Court addressed itself to the issue of whether a decision which declares an article of the Louisiana Civil Code to be unconstitutional should be given retroactive effect.
Villanueva v. Schwall 408 So. 2d 1186 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1982
4th Cir. 1981), at 830-831: " (La.
Stafford v. Division of Administration 407 So. 2d 87 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Succession of Clivens 406 So. 2d 790 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
LeBlanc v. LeBlanc 405 So. 2d 1187 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
Succession of Ross 397 So. 2d 830 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1981
Bishop v. Bishop 394 So. 2d 799 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1981
rendered some time later is determinative of that issue and the judgment is affirmed.
Crook v. White 393 So. 2d 782 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1981
Herndon v. Herndon 388 So. 2d 463 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
By analogy see Kirchberg v. Feenstra, 609 F.2d 727 (5th Cir. 1979)
Lovell v. Lovell 386 So. 2d 1063 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Jessen v. Jessen 386 So. 2d 953 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
We do not consider this sufficient justification to reverse the trial court's denial of a new trial, which declared Article 160 unconstitutional, also declared that all judgments awarding alimony prior to the effective date of the amendment to Article 160 of the Louisiana Civil Code (June 29, 1979) remain unaffected by the decision in Lovell .
Higdon v. Higdon 385 So. 2d 396 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
art. 160 as amended is unconstitutional, having abandoned that argument as a
Thibodeaux v. Thibodeaux 383 So. 2d 125 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
We disagree with the defendant’s
Moss v. Moss 379 So. 2d 1206 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1980
Smith v. Smith 382 So. 2d 972 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1980
Finally, the Supreme Court of *974 Louisiana found Article 160 to be unconstitutional.