Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 31:3 (2026)

Unless expressly or impliedly prohibited from doing so, individuals may renounce or modify what is established in their favor by the provisions of this Code if the renunciation or modification does not affect the rights of others and is not contrary to the public good.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§3. Freedom of contract and limitations thereon

Unless expressly or impliedly prohibited from doing so, individuals may renounce or modify what is established in their favor by the provisions of this Code if the renunciation or modification does not affect the rights of others and is not contrary to the public good.

Acts 1974, No. 50, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 1975.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 21 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: Musser Davis Land Co. v. Union Pac. Resources, 201 F.3d 561 (5th Cir. 2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Musser Davis Land Co. v. Union Pac. Resources, 201 F.3d 561 (5th Cir. 2000). “R.S. § 31:3, the reach of the term “exploration” may not be ascertained without reference to the oil and gas lease in which it appears.”

B.A. Kelly Land Co., L.L.C. v. Questar Expl. & Prod. Co., 106 So. 3d 181 (La. Ct. App. 2012). “Finally, judicial ascertainment is not against public policy, as “nothing in Louisiana law prevents long-term leasing following production, as in the present case.” In the absence of a violation of law or public policy, the mineral lease constitutes the law between the parties…”

Lamoco Inc. v. Hughes, 850 So. 2d 67 (La. Ct. App. 2003). “R.S. 31:3. For example, "[p]arties may either fix the term of a mineral [royalty] or shorten the applicable period of prescription of nonuse or both.”

Steele v. Denning, 445 So. 2d 94 (La. Ct. App. 1984). “R.S. 31:3). The nature of mineral rights is not an issue in this case.”

Dawes v. Hale, 421 So. 2d 1208 (La. Ct. App. 1982). “LSA-R.S. 31:3 provides: "Unless expressly or impliedly prohibited from doing so, individuals may renounce or modify what is established in their favor by the provisions of this Code if the renunciation or modification does not affect the rights of others and is not contrary to…”

Bradford v. Onshore Pipeline Const. Co., 853 So. 2d 756 (La. Ct. App. 2003). “R.S. 31:3, is to be shared between the lessor and lessee in the fractional division contemplated by the lease.”

Ross v. Enervest Operating, L.L.C., 119 So. 3d 943 (La. Ct. App. 2013). “R.S. 31:3 states: Unless expressly or impliedly prohibited from doing so, individuals may renounce or modify what is established in their favor by the provisions of this Code if the renunciation or modification does not affect the rights of others and is not contrary to the…”

Hanks v. Wilson, 633 So. 2d 1345 (La. Ct. App. 1994). “See LSA-R.S. 31:3; LSA-C.C. art. 1983. That Amoco would look to and rely on Paragraph 9 could hardly have come as a last minute surprise to Hanks.”

Roseberry v. Louisiana Land & Expl. Co., 470 So. 2d 178 (La. Ct. App. 1985). “31:114 note that under Article 3, parties are free to provide for a result other than that contemplated by Article 114.”

Byargeon v. Concordia Chamber of Com., Inc., 188 So. 3d 369 (La. Ct. App. 2016). “R.S. 31:3. Therefore, the trial court correctly granted the exception of no cause of action without having to distinguish this matter from the fact situation in Blair, 621 So.”

Am. Lung Ass'n of Louisiana, Inc. v. State, 645 So. 2d 1219 (La. Ct. App. 1994). “LSA-R.S. 31:3. But in the absence of a contractual limitation, Article 121 simply addresses the rights of a mineral lessee.”

Louisiana Land & Expl. Co. v. Pennzoil Expl. & Prod. Co., 982 F. Supp. 398 (E.D. La. 1997). · cites it 2× “R.S. 31:3 provides that: Unless expressly or impliedly prohibited from doing so, individuals may renounce or modify what is established in their favor by the provisions of this Code if the renunciation or modification does not affect the rights of others and is not contrary to…”

Show all 21 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.