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

La. Rev. Stat. § 12:84 (2026)

Repealed by Acts 2014, No. 328, §5, eff. Jan. 1, 2015.

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

§84.  Repealed by Acts 2014, No. 328, §5, eff. Jan. 1, 2015.

Acts 1968, No. 105, §1; Acts 2014, No. 328, §5, eff. Jan. 1, 2015.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 29 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1973–2021 · leading case: Dunbar v. Williams, 554 So. 2d 56 (La. Ct. App. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dunbar v. Williams, 554 So. 2d 56 (La. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 17× “Interpretation of Louisiana's interested officer and director statutes and those dealing with the fiduciary duties owed by officers and directors to the corporation and its shareholders, LSA-R.S. 12:84 and R.S. 12:91, is at issue in this case.”
Rivercity v. Am. Can Co., 600 F. Supp. 908 (E.D. La. 1984). · cites it 10× “However, it is clear that LSA-RS 12:84 bars Rivercity’s reliance on that ratification to satisfy the corporate formality rules.”
Spruiell v. Ludwig, 568 So. 2d 133 (La. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “LSA-R.S. 12:84 A sets guidelines for validating such a transaction.”
English Turn Prop. Owner's Ass'n v. Short, 204 So. 3d 672 (La. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “R.S. 12:84 because they all “own both a Lot and a Dwelling” and, as such, have a financial interest in assessing the lot owners.”
Noe v. Roussel, 310 So. 2d 806 (La. 1975). · cites it 3× “In so contending, Relators rely upon LSA-R.S. 12:84, subd. A(1), (2) and (3), which provide that no contract a corporation and one or more of its officers or directors, or between a corporation and another corporation in which its officers or directors are interested, shall be…”
Church Point Wholesale Beverage Co. v. Voitier, 706 So. 2d 1015 (La. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 5× “R.S. 12:84. Following various pre-trial procedures, including the filing of several exceptions and motions by Voitier and the amendment of its petition by the corporations, a trial on the merits was held on November 20, 1996.”
Guillory v. Broussard, 190 So. 3d 486 (La. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “R.S. 12:84 (repealed 2015) as that statute read at the time issue was joined in this litigation: 5 A.”
Theriot v. Bourg, 691 So. 2d 213 (La. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “The district court erred in not directing a partial verdict in favor of the defendants on all issues related to self-dealing because all instances of self-dealing were permissible within the language of LSA-R.S. 12:84. 7. The jury improperly instructed the jury on self-dealing.”
Dunham v. Anderson-Dunham, Inc., 466 So. 2d 1317 (La. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 3× “Endsley breached his fiduciary *1323 duty as executor and trustee, as well as his duty to the corporation and its shareholders, by secretly "orchestrating" the contract; and (2) Under LSA-R.S. 12:84 [2] , directors have a duty to disclose all material facts of contracts which…”
Denta-Max v. Maxicare Louisiana, Inc., 671 So. 2d 995 (La. Ct. App. 1996). “The trial court's statement that the preliminary injunction merely preserves the status quo by prohibiting Maxicare from refusing to pay pending the outcome of the litigation does not change the fact that Maxicare has been ordered to take affirmative actions.”
New Jax Condos. Ass'n v. Vanderbilt New Orleans, LLC, 219 So. 3d 471 (La. Ct. App. 2017). “See former R.S. 12:84. . At the district court, on October 29, 2015, the Weber entities filed an exception of no cause of action asserting that Bylaw 5.”
Woodstock Enter., Inc. v. Int'l Moorings & Marine, Inc., 524 So. 2d 1313 (La. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 5× “R.S. 12:84 and the jurisprudence governing a director’s breach of his fiduciary duty to his corporate principal to this case, a contractual dispute between two discrete and independent corporate entities.”
Show all 29 citing cases →
— La. Rev. Stat. § 12:84(A) — 3 cases
Denta-Max v. Maxicare Louisiana, Inc., 671 So. 2d 995 (La. Ct. App. 1996). “The trial court's statement that the preliminary injunction merely preserves the status quo by prohibiting Maxicare from refusing to pay pending the outcome of the litigation does not change the fact that Maxicare has been ordered to take affirmative actions.”
Dunbar v. Williams, 554 So. 2d 56 (La. Ct. App. 1989). “Interpretation of Louisiana's interested officer and director statutes and those dealing with the fiduciary duties owed by officers and directors to the corporation and its shareholders, LSA-R.S. 12:84 and R.S. 12:91, is at issue in this case.”
Nalty v. DH Holmes Co., Ltd., 775 So. 2d 695 (La. Ct. App. 2000).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 12:84(A)(1) — 1 case
Dunbar v. Williams, 554 So. 2d 56 (La. Ct. App. 1989). “Interpretation of Louisiana's interested officer and director statutes and those dealing with the fiduciary duties owed by officers and directors to the corporation and its shareholders, LSA-R.S. 12:84 and R.S. 12:91, is at issue in this case.”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 12:84(A)(2013) — 2 cases
Karen Moulton, Individually & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Stewart Enter., Inc., John B. Elstrott, Jr., Thomas M. Kitchen, Alden J. McDonald, Jr., Ronald H. Patron, Ashton J. Ryan, Jr., John K. Saer, Jr., Frank B. Stewart, Jr., & Serv. Corp. Int'l, Rio Acquisition Corp. (La. Ct. App. 2021).
Karen Moulton, Individually & on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Stewart Enter., Inc., John B. Elstrott, Jr., Thomas M. Kitchen, Alden J. McDonald, Jr., Ronald H. Patron, Ashton J. Ryan, Jr., John K. Saer, Jr., Frank B. Stewart, Jr., & Serv. Corp. Int'l, Rio Acquisition Corp. (La. Ct. App. 2021).
— La. Rev. Stat. § 12:84(A)(3) — 1 case
Dunbar v. Williams, 554 So. 2d 56 (La. Ct. App. 1989). “Interpretation of Louisiana's interested officer and director statutes and those dealing with the fiduciary duties owed by officers and directors to the corporation and its shareholders, LSA-R.S. 12:84 and R.S. 12:91, is at issue in this case.”
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.