Legal Opinion · Concurrence

W.R.M. v. H.C.V.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

Decided March 9, 2007No. 2006-CA-0702Published

1ConcurrenceJohnson, Justice

hi concur with the per curiam opinion vacating and setting aside the judgment of the court of appeal, and dismissing W.R.M.’s Petition to Establish Filiation, with prejudice. In my view, the trial court correctly granted the exceptions of no cause of action, no right of action and prescription. The retroactive application of LSA-C.C. art. 191 was not uneonstitu-*173tional in this case because W.R.M. did not have a vested right to bring an avowal action, as he did not file his avowal action within a reasonable time, nor did he have an actual relationship with A.M.V. Thus, W.R.M.’s claim is…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Stanley v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Lehr v. RobertsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  3. Quilloin v. WalcottSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  4. Michael H. v. Gerald D.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  5. Joseph v. Hospital Service District No. 2 of the Parish of St. MarySupreme Court of Louisiana · 2006

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API