Chance v. American Honda Motor Co.
Chance v. American Honda Motor Co., 624 So. 2d 23 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1993).
Cited by
- Pamela Nicole Bordelon v. Jody John Bordelon La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
- Scott Derouen v. Pamela Nunez Derouen La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
- Derouen v. Derouen 893 So. 2d 981 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2005
- Dupre v. SCHERING-PLOUGH HEALTH CARE PROD., INC. 656 So. 2d 786 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1995
- Chance v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc. 635 So. 2d 177 La. 1994
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Louisiana State Bar Ass'n v. Williams 516 So. 2d 119
- Lyman v. Town of Sunset 567 So. 2d 1171
Opinion text
WRIT GRANTED AND MADE PEREMPTORY: The trial court erred in denying relators’ exception of prescription. We find no clear expression of legislative intent that La.C.C. art. 3492, as amended in 1992, is to be applied retroactively. Absent such an intention, Louisiana courts have consistently held that prescriptive statutes will not be applied retroactively to revive an already prescribed cause of action. Hall v. Hall, 516 So.2d 119 (La.1987); Lyman v. Town of Sunset, 567 So.2d 1171 (La.App. 3d Cir.1990). Thus, the trial court erred when it ruled that the 1992 amendment to Article 3492 could retroactively revive the plaintiffs’ cause of action, which under prior law had prescribed as of October 26, 1988.