Luella
#778 in the US in 2025
Luella in the United States
Between 2016 and 2025 the name has been rising — up 87% as a share of girls' births.
SOURCE·US Social Security Administration, national baby-name data·Public domain. SSA lists a name only if it was given to at least 5 babies of that sex that year.·REVIEWED JUL 2026
Luella in New Zealand
Luella never reached 10 births in a single year in New Zealand, so it does not appear in the DIA file. That is a reporting floor, not a zero — the name may still have been registered here, just never ten times in one year.
SOURCE·NZ Department of Internal Affairs, births by first name·CC BY 4.0. DIA lists a name only if it was given to at least 10 babies of that sex that year.·REVIEWED JUL 2026
Decade by decade in the US
| Year | Rank | Births |
|---|---|---|
| 1880 | #140 | 111 |
| 1890 | #175 | 184 |
| 1900 | #191 | 268 |
| 1910 | #183 | 374 |
| 1920 | #224 | 852 |
| 1930 | #255 | 597 |
| 1940 | #429 | 251 |
| 1950 | #768 | 127 |
| 1960 | #1,227 | 79 |
| 1970 | #2,240 | 35 |
| 1980 | #4,743 | 15 |
| 1990 | #6,131 | 14 |
| 2000 | #7,158 | 14 |
| 2010 | #1,942 | 103 |
| 2020 | #972 | 262 |
Where in the United States
The states that registered Luella most often since 1880. These are lifetime totals, so they track state population as much as local taste — a name common in Wyoming will never out-count California.
| State | Births |
|---|---|
| Minnesota | 1,717 |
| Ohio | 1,533 |
| Michigan | 1,509 |
| Illinois | 1,345 |
| Pennsylvania | 1,251 |
| Wisconsin | 1,163 |
| New York | 1,069 |
| Iowa | 1,062 |
| Indiana | 825 |
| California | 790 |
How these figures are worked out
- Counts come straight from the registrars: the US Social Security Administration (1880–2025) and the New Zealand Department of Internal Affairs (1900–2025). Nothing is scraped from another names site.
- Ranks are computed against every name in that year's file, not just the ones this site publishes pages for — otherwise a rank would flatter every name we happen to list.
- The curve is drawn on births per 100,000 of that sex, not raw counts. Raw counts across eras are misleading: far more births were registered in 1957 than in 1890, so a flat count is a falling share.
- Each country hides small numbers — the US below 5 births a year, New Zealand below 10. A gap in a line is "below the floor", never "nobody".
SOURCE·US SSA (1880–2025) + NZ DIA (1900–2025) birth registrations·ranks and shares computed from the source files, see method·REVIEWED JUL 2026