DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Chance v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 635 So. 2d 177.

37 citing documents.

  • Douglas Bienvenu v. 1 and 2 87184 C/W John Doe v. 1 and 2 87515 La. 2024
  • Sam Doe v. the Society of the Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese of Lafayette La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2023
    4/11/94), and Cameron Parish School Board v. ACandS, Inc., 96-895 (La.
  • T. S v. Congregation Of Holy Cross Southern Province La. 2023
    and Chance v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. , that the legislative revival of previously prescribed claims denies the Defendant of the right to plead prescription.
  • Succession Of Rosalie Handy Lewis And John Charles Lewis La. 2022
  • Sam Doe v. The Society Of The Roman Catholic Church Of The Diocese Of Lafayette La. 2022
  • William M. McKinley v. Sheraunte' D. McKinley La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2022
    4/ 11/ 94), wherein the Louisiana Supreme Court considered whether an amendment to a prescriptive period applied retroactively to revive an already prescribed cause of action.
  • Marcy Andre Barras v. Jason O'Rourke La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2019
    4/11/94), the Louisiana Supreme Court established the test for determining whether the legislature intended for a statute to revive prescribed causes of action.
  • Succession of William Dalton Pelt La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2018
  • In re Pelt 244 So. 3d 476 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2018
  • Kathryn Elizabeth Holland v. Paul Scott Holland La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2017
    4/11/94), : Although prescriptive statutes are generally procedural in nature, the revival of an already prescribed claim presents additional concerns.
  • Succession of Younger 206 So. 3d 1088 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2016
  • Ben William Meaux v. Leonard Guidry La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
  • Meaux v. Guidry 140 So. 3d 871 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    The supreme court addressed the issues of revival of prescribed claims by the legislature in Chance v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 93-2582 (La.4/11/94), .
  • Peck v. Richmar Construction, Inc. 144 So. 3d 1042 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
    Honda Motor Co., Inc., (La.
  • Thomas v. Roberts 106 So. 3d 557 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2012
    Chance v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 93-2582 (La.04/11/94), .
  • In Re: Succession of Donald Clay Smith La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
  • In Re Succession of Smith 29 So. 3d 723 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2010
    Honda Motor Co., Inc., 93-2582 p. 2 (La.4/11/94), ).
  • Morgan v. Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections 24 So. 3d 208 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    In Chance v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 93-2582, pp. 2-3 (La.4/11/94), (footnote omitted) (first alteration in original), the supreme court discussed the issue of revival of a prescribed claim by the legislature as follows: Although prescriptive statutes are generally procedural in nature, the revival of an already prescribed claim presents additional concerns.
  • Clarence Henry v. Sba Shipyard, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
  • Henry v. SBA SHIPYARD, INC. 24 So. 3d 956 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
    |sThe Louisiana Supreme Court has held that when the legislature intends for a new law to be applied retroactively to revive an already prescribed claim, the legislature should give “at the very least, a clear and unequivocal expression of intent by the legislature for such an ‘extreme exercise of legislative power.’ ” Chance v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 93-2582, p. 2 (La.4/11/94), .
  • Troy Morgan v. Louisiana dept.of Pub. Saf.& Corr La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2008
    4/11/94), (footnote omitted) (first alteration in original), the supreme court discussed the issue of revival of a prescribed claim by the legislature as follows: Although prescriptive statutes are generally procedural in nature, the revival of an already prescribed claim presents additional concerns.
  • In Re Succession of James 994 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
    RETROACTIVE REVIVAL OF CAUSES OF ACTION When faced with the issue of whether a change in a prescriptive period can be applied retroactively to revive an action or right that prescribed before a change in the law, the Louisiana Supreme Court, in the products liability case of Chance v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc., 93-2582 (La.4/11/94), -78 , employed the following analysis: Although prescriptive statutes are generally procedural in nature, the revival of an already prescribed claim present
  • Sumner v. MUNICI-ADAMS 986 So. 2d 258 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2008
  • 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)
  • In Re Succession of Faget 938 So. 2d 1003 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2006
    *1007 In Chance v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 93-2582 (La.4/11/94), , the Louisiana Supreme Court observed that if it were to interpret a statutory amendment to allow revival of prescribed causes of action, "the substantive rights of the defendant would be materially changed because he would be stripped of this acquired defense."
  • Succession of Samuel McKay, Jr. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
  • In Re Succession of McKay 921 So. 2d 1219 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2006
    The supreme court addressed the issues of revival of prescribed claims by the legislature in Chance v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 93-2582 (La.4/11/94), .
  • Raymond v. Orleans Parish School Bd. 856 So. 2d 27 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2003
    Elevating Boats, Inc., XXXX-XXXX, p. 14-15, 795 So.2d at 1163-64 (emphasis in original); see also Chance v. American Honda Motor Co., 93-2582 (La.4/11/94), (refusing to apply the statute retroactively to revive an already-prescribed cause of action).
  • State v. Lee 728 So. 2d 1042 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1999
    Chance v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc., 93-2582 (La.4/11/94), .
  • In re Brinkman 717 So. 2d 681 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
    v. Acands, Inc., 96-0895, p. 8 (La.1/14/97), ; Chance v. American Honda Motor Company, Inc., 93-2582 (La.4/11/94), .
  • Sudwischer v. Estate of Huffpauir 705 So. 2d 724 La. 1997
    [6] This case is logically consistent with our holding in Chance v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 93-2582 (La.4/11/94), , wherein we held that once an action has prescribed, the right to plead prescription is a substantive right which cannot be stripped away by the retroactive application of a new prescriptive period which would result in the revival of the prescribed cause of action.
  • Cameron Parish School Bd. v. Acands, Inc. 687 So. 2d 84 La. 1997
    The test for determining whether the legislature intended an Act to revive prescribed causes of action was recently explained by this court in Chance v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., 93-2582 (La.4/11/94), .
  • Wilson v. City of Baton Rouge 683 So. 2d 382 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1996
  • Doe v. Doe 671 So. 2d 466 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1995
  • Dupre v. SCHERING-PLOUGH HEALTH CARE PROD., INC. 656 So. 2d 786 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
  • Gay v. C & D OF SHREVEPORT 645 So. 2d 280 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
  • Jackson v. Dendy 638 So. 2d 1182 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1994
    See Chance v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.