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

La. Rev. Stat. § 27:41 (2026)

CHAPTER 4.  THE LOUISIANA RIVERBOAT ECONOMIC

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

CHAPTER 4.  THE LOUISIANA RIVERBOAT ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT AND GAMING CONTROL ACT

PART I.  GENERAL PROVISIONS

§41.  Title and citation

This Chapter shall be cited and referred to as the "Louisiana Riverboat Economic Development and Gaming Control Act".

Acts 1991, No. 753, §1, eff. July 18, 1991.  Redesignated from R.S. 4:501 by Acts 1996, 1st Ex. Sess., No. 7, §3, eff. May 1, 1996.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1997–2011 · leading case: Astoria Ent., Inc. v. Debartolo, 12 So. 3d 956 (La. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Astoria Ent., Inc. v. Debartolo, 12 So. 3d 956 (La. 2009). “R.S. 27:41 et seq. 4 . This structure was revoked by the Louisiana Gaming Control Law, La.”
Casino Ass'n of La. v. State Ex Rel. Foster, 820 So. 2d 494 (La. 2002). “R.S. 27:41 et seq. ], and any person who owns a riverboat upon which gaming activities are licensed to be conducted.”
TREASURE CHEST v. Par. of Jefferson, 691 So. 2d 751 (La. Ct. App. 1997). “4:501 through 562 as LSA-R.S. 27:41 through 113. At all pertinent times, LSA-R.”
Lambert v. Riverboat Gaming Enforc. Div., 706 So. 2d 172 (La. Ct. App. 1997). “Initially, we note that plaintiffs herein allege certain acts of misconduct by defendants which plaintiffs contend are violative of a prescribed course of conduct outlined in the Louisiana Riverboat Economic Development and Gaming Control Act, LSA-R.S. 27:41 et seq., formerly…”
Astoria Ent., Inc. v. Edwards, 159 F. Supp. 2d 303 (E.D. La. 2001). “R.S. 27:41 et seq. However, the Court utilizes the initial statutory designations.”
Chase v. Louisiana Riverboat Gaming, P'ship, 709 So. 2d 904 (La. Ct. App. 1998). “R.S. 27:41. [17] Chase also argued that the Isle of Capri's position that the casino is not moored on a navigable water body or the Red River, thus taking the casino out of navigable waters, a Jones Act requirement, is flawed because the Gaming Act requires the casino to be in…”
TeleRecovery of Louisiana, Inc. v. Gaulon, 738 So. 2d 662 (La. Ct. App. 1999). “R.S. 27:41 to 27:113) and are exempted from the statutory definition of gambling in the Louisiana Criminal Code.”
Strong v. Eldorado Casino Shreveport Jt. Venture, 73 So. 3d 967 (La. Ct. App. 2011). “R.S. 27:41 et seq., and that the crime of gambling defined in La.”
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.