the acquisition of such a vested property right ... cannot be retroactively applied so as to divest the plaintiff of his vested right in his cause of action because such a retroactive application would contravene the due process guaranties.” Cole v. Celotex, 599 So.2d at 1063 (quoting Faucheaux, 470 So.2d at 879). Walls, 98-0455, p. 8, 740 So.2d at 1269. See 2 A.N. Yiannopoulos, Louisiana Civil Law Treatise, § 10 (3d ed. 1991) (“Retroactive application of new legislation is constitutionally permissible only if it does not result in impairment of the obligation of contracts or in divesture of vested rights.”); see also Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 428-29, 102 S.Ct. 1148, 71 L.Ed.2d 265 (1982), and Martinez v. California, 444 U.S. 277, 100 S.Ct. 553, 62 L.Ed.2d 481 (1980) (<HOLDING>); Anderson v. Avondale Indus., Inc., 00-2799,
holding that the federal due process clause protects a state employee who under state law has a legitimate claim of entitlement to state employment holding that entitlement to benefits is a property interest protected by the due process clause of the fifth amendment to the united states constitution holding the right to marry is a central part of the liberty protected by the due process clause holding that licenses issued under minnesota law do not create property interests in renewal that are protected by due process clause holding that a state tort claim is a species of property protected by the due process clause