55 So. 3d 918
La. Ct. App.2010Background
- Davies filed a writ challenging the Louisiana Ethics Adjudicatory Board's denial of his prescription exception after charges were filed for alleged ethics violations.
- The Board voted to file formal charges against Davies on February 18, 2010, following its investigation into unsworn complaints from 2008.
- Davies asserted a one-year prescriptive limit under La. R.S. 42:1141(C)(3)(c), arguing charges were prescribed since filed after the one-year window from discovery or board vote.
- The Board ruled the one-year limit did not apply retroactively and that the two-year prescriptive period in La. R.S. 42:1163 controlled, rendering charges timely.
- The court granted writs to review, determining that the one-year provision controls and applies retroactively, leading to reversal of the Board and dismissal with prejudice.
- Costs of the writ grant were allocated to the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute controls prescription? | Davies argues 42:1141(C)(3)(c) controls. | Board argues 42:1163 governs due to conflict or lack of retroactivity. | 42:1141(C)(3)(c) controls and is more specific. |
| Is 42:1141(C)(3)(c) retroactive or prospective? | Davies contends retroactive application is required. | Board argues the statute should apply prospectively only. | 42:1141(C)(3)(c) applies retroactively. |
| Does retroactive application conflict with vested rights or require a prospective interpretation? | No vested rights to issuance of charges; retroactivity permissible. | Legislative intent favors prospective application. | Retroactive application is permissible; no vested-right impediment. |
| What is the effect of applying the one-year limit to this matter? | Charges were not timely filed under the one-year limit. | Charges were timely under the two-year period in effect when investigation commenced. | Charges were not timely; prescription exception should be sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Shafor, 22 So.3d 935 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2009) (conflict/priority of statutes; specific statute prevails)
- In re Succession of Young, 732 So.2d 833 (La.App. 1 Cir. 1999) (retroactivity of new limitations with reasonable time)
- Cole v. Celotex Corp., 599 So.2d 1058 (La.1992) (expressed legislative intent for prospective application)
- St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Smith, 609 So.2d 809 (La.1992) (future effective date as hint of prospective application)
- Lott v. Haley, 370 So.2d 521 (La.1979) (prospective vs retroactive application of statutes)
- Humphrey v. City of New Orleans, 925 So.2d 1202 (La.2006) (interpretation of legislative will and retroactivity principles)
- Pumphrey v. City of New Orleans, 925 So.2d 1202 (La.2006) (related to statutory construction and retroactivity concepts)