La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 1:3 (2026)

Words and phrases; how construed

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§3.  Words and phrases; how construed

Words and phrases shall be read with their context and shall be construed according to the common and approved usage of the language. Technical words and phrases, and such others as may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law, shall be construed and understood according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning.

The word "shall" is mandatory and the word "may" is permissive.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 492 cases (74 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: Oubre v. Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan, 79 So. 3d 987 (La. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Oubre v. Louisiana Citizens Fair Plan, 79 So. 3d 987 (La. 2011). · cites it 16× “11; La.Rev.Stat. § 1:3; see also Snowton v. Sewerage and Water Bd.”
Borel v. Young, 989 So. 2d 42 (La. 2008). · cites it 10× “The use of the word "shall," which must be interpreted as a mandatory provision, see La.Rev.Stat. § 1:3, lends further credence to this conclusion.”
McGlothlin v. Christus St. Patrick Hosp., 65 So. 3d 1218 (La. 2011). · cites it 8× “11; La.Rev. Stat. § 1:3; see also Snowton v. Sewerage and Water Bd.”
Ogea v. Merritt, 130 So. 3d 888 (La. 2013). · cites it 5× “R.S. 1:3. The meaning and intent of a law is determined by considering the law in its entirety and by placing a construction on the law that is consistent with the express terms of the law and with the obvious intent of the legislature in enacting the law.”
Brandi Billeaudeau, Veronica Billeaudeau, & Joseph Billeaudeau v. Opelousas Gen. Hosp. Auth., Dr. Kondilo Skirlis-Zavala, & the Shumacher Grp. of Louisiana, Inc., 218 So. 3d 513 (La. 2016). · cites it 4× “11; La. Rev. Stat. § 1:3; see also Snowton v.”
State v. Oliphant, 113 So. 3d 165 (La. 2013). · cites it 6× “11; La.Rev.Stat. § 1:3; see also Snowton v. Sewerage and Water Bd.”
Wooley v. Lucksinger, 14 So. 3d 311 (La. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 6× “La.Rev. Stat. § 1:3 (2004); La. Civ.Code arts.”
St. Bernard Port, Harbor & Terminal Dist. v. Guy Hopkins Constr. Co., 220 So. 3d 6 (La. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “9; La. Rev. Stat. §§ 1:3 and 1:4. However, when the language of the law is susceptible of different meanings, it must be interpreted as having the meaning that best conforms to the purpose of the law.”
Katie Realty, Ltd. v. Louisiana Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp., 100 So. 3d 324 (La. 2012). · cites it 6× “11; La.Rev.Stat. § 1:3; see also Snowton v. Sewerage and Water Bd.”
Rebel Distributors Corp. v. Luba Workers' Comp., 144 So. 3d 825 (La. 2013). · cites it 5× “Id. When the wording of a section is clear and free of ambiguity, the letter of it shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.”
Warren v. Louisiana Med. Mut. Ins. Co., 21 So. 3d 186 (La. 2009). · cites it 4× “The Court found, however, that not one case in the jurisprudence considering the distinction between prescription and peremption has accentuated the language *212 used in a given statute as determinative of which was intended, and had the legislature meant it to be peremptive it…”
Boudreaux v. Louisiana Dep't of Pub. Saf. & Corr., 101 So. 3d 22 (La. 2012). · cites it 6× “11; La.Rev.Stat. § 1:3; see also Snowton v. Sewerage and Water Bd.”
Show all 492 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.