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

La. Rev. Stat. § 38:2191 (2026)

Payments under contract

✓ laws through the 2025 Regular Session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§2191. Payments under contract

           A. All public entities shall promptly pay all obligations including approved change orders, arising under public contracts when the obligations become due and payable under the contract. All progressive stage payments and final payments shall be paid when they respectively become due and payable under the contract.

           B.(1) Any public entity failing to make any progressive stage payment within forty-five days following receipt of a certified request for payment by the public entity without reasonable cause shall be liable for reasonable attorney fees and interest charged at one-half percent accumulated daily, not to exceed fifteen percent. Any public entity failing to make any final payments after formal final acceptance and within forty-five days following receipt of a clear lien certificate by the public entity shall be liable for reasonable attorney fees and interest charged at one-half percent accumulated daily, not to exceed fifteen percent.

           (2) Any interest received by the contractor pursuant to Paragraph (1) of this Subsection, shall be disbursed on a prorated basis among the contractor and subcontractors, each receiving a prorated portion based on the principal amount due within ten business days of receipt of the interest.

           C. The provisions of this Section shall not be subject to waiver by contract.

           D. Any public entity failing to make any progressive stage payments arbitrarily or without reasonable cause, or any final payment when due as provided in this Section, shall be subject to mandamus to compel the payment of the sums due under the contract up to the amount of the appropriation made for the award and execution of the contract, including any authorized change orders.

           E. A declaration that a public works contract is null and void as being contrary to the provisions of R.S. 38:2211 et seq. shall not affect amounts due and payable under the contract, including overhead and profit, for the work performed by or on behalf of the contractor.

           Acts 1991, No. 1044, §1; Acts 2011, No. 184, §1, eff. August 15, 2011; Acts 2014, No. 487, §1, eff. August 1, 2014; Acts 2018, No. 566, §1, eff. August 1, 2018; Acts 2021, No. 205, §1, eff. August 1, 2021; Acts 2024, No. 165, §1, eff. May 23, 2024.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case: Woodrow Wilson Constr. LLC v. Orleans Par. Sch. Bd., 245 So. 3d 1 (La. Ct. App. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Woodrow Wilson Constr. LLC v. Orleans Par. Sch. Bd., 245 So. 3d 1 (La. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 37× “R.S. 38:2191 applies and the statutory requirements have been met, we find the trial court erred in denying the petition for a writ of mandamus.”
Wallace C. Drennan, Inc. v. St. Charles Par., 202 So. 3d 535 (La. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 22× “R.S. 38:2191. Id. On September 29, 2015, Drennan filed its third petition for writ of mandamus.”
St. Bernard Port v. Guy Hopkins Constr. Co., 220 So. 3d 6 (La. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “R.S. 38:2191 (D) is conditioned on appropriated funds remaining available.”
QUALITY DESIGN v. City of Gonzales, 977 So. 2d 87 (La. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “R.S. 38:2191, and for all costs of these proceedings.”
Quality Design & Constr., Inc. v. City of Gonzales, 146 So. 3d 567 (La. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 11× “R.S. 38:2191, on which QDC’s arguments rely, provides as follows: A.”
DIAMOND B CONST. CO. v. City of Plaquemine, 673 So. 2d 636 (La. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “LSA-R.S. 38:2191 provides, as follows: A.”
Prof'l Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Par. of Jefferson, 562 So. 2d 1184 (La. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 5× “Therefore, in order for Professional to be granted attorney’s fees under R.S. 38:2191 the Court must find that the statute is remedial.”
Wallace C. Drennan, Inc. Versus Timothy P. Kerner, in His Capacity as Mayor of the Town of Lafitte & the Town of Lafitte, 409 So. 3d 893 (La. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 72× “R.S. 38:2191 of the Louisiana Public Works Act, a claim which Lafitte contends has been properly dismissed, as now barred by res judicata.”
Benson v. City of Marksville, 812 So. 2d 687 (La. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “1990), the appellate court approved of the trial court's description of an attorney's fee amendment to a public works provision: Specifically, the Court finds that R.S. 38:2191 was not designed as a vehicle to exercise an existing right but created a new right that allowed a…”
Cajun Concrete Servs., Inc. v. J. Caldarera & Co., 759 So. 2d 237 (La. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “R.S. 38:2191 because the statute does not apply to this situation.”
Foster Constr., Inc. v. Town of Richwood, 117 So. 3d 607 (La. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 13× “R.S. 38:2191 did not provide a right to seek a writ of mandamus at the time the contract was confected and that the amendment to provide for such relief did not become effective until August 15, 2011, after the contracted project was completed.”
Wallace C. Drennan, Inc. v. St. Charles Par., 164 So. 3d 186 (La. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 8× “R.S. 38:2191. For the following reasons, we reverse the ruling of the trial court and remand the matter for further proceedings on the Petition for Writ of Mandamus.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
La. Rev. Stat. § 38:2191(0): 1 case
Foster Constr., Inc. v. Town of Richwood, 117 So. 3d 607 (La. Ct. App. 2013). “R.S. 38:2191 did not provide a right to seek a writ of mandamus at the time the contract was confected and that the amendment to provide for such relief did not become effective until August 15, 2011, after the contracted project was completed.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 38:2191(A): 8 cases
Woodrow Wilson Constr. LLC v. Orleans Par. Sch. Bd., 245 So. 3d 1 (La. Ct. App. 2018). “R.S. 38:2191 applies and the statutory requirements have been met, we find the trial court erred in denying the petition for a writ of mandamus.”
St. Bernard Port v. Guy Hopkins Constr. Co., 220 So. 3d 6 (La. Ct. App. 2017). “R.S. 38:2191 (D) is conditioned on appropriated funds remaining available.”
Wallace C. Drennan, Inc. v. St. Charles Par., 202 So. 3d 535 (La. Ct. App. 2016). “R.S. 38:2191. Id. On September 29, 2015, Drennan filed its third petition for writ of mandamus.”
Foster Constr., Inc. v. Town of Richwood, 117 So. 3d 607 (La. Ct. App. 2013). “R.S. 38:2191 did not provide a right to seek a writ of mandamus at the time the contract was confected and that the amendment to provide for such relief did not become effective until August 15, 2011, after the contracted project was completed.”
BRC Constr. Grp., LLC v. New Orleans Reg'l Transit Auth., No. 2024-CA-0657 (La. Ct. App. Apr. 1, 2025).
La. Rev. Stat. § 38:2191(B): 13 cases
Woodrow Wilson Constr. LLC v. Orleans Par. Sch. Bd., 245 So. 3d 1 (La. Ct. App. 2018). “R.S. 38:2191 applies and the statutory requirements have been met, we find the trial court erred in denying the petition for a writ of mandamus.”
QUALITY DESIGN v. City of Gonzales, 977 So. 2d 87 (La. Ct. App. 2007). “R.S. 38:2191, and for all costs of these proceedings.”
Wallace C. Drennan, Inc. v. St. Charles Par., 202 So. 3d 535 (La. Ct. App. 2016). “R.S. 38:2191. Id. On September 29, 2015, Drennan filed its third petition for writ of mandamus.”
Prof'l Constr. Servs., Inc. v. Par. of Jefferson, 562 So. 2d 1184 (La. Ct. App. 1990). “Therefore, in order for Professional to be granted attorney’s fees under R.S. 38:2191 the Court must find that the statute is remedial.”
Wallace C. Drennan, Inc. Versus Timothy P. Kerner, in His Capacity as Mayor of the Town of Lafitte & the Town of Lafitte, 409 So. 3d 893 (La. Ct. App. 2024). “R.S. 38:2191 of the Louisiana Public Works Act, a claim which Lafitte contends has been properly dismissed, as now barred by res judicata.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 38:2191(B)(1): 2 cases
Wallace C. Drennan, Inc. Versus Timothy P. Kerner, in His Capacity as Mayor of the Town of Lafitte & the Town of Lafitte, 409 So. 3d 893 (La. Ct. App. 2024). “R.S. 38:2191 of the Louisiana Public Works Act, a claim which Lafitte contends has been properly dismissed, as now barred by res judicata.”
Wallace C. Drennan, Inc. v. Latoya Cantrell, 376 So. 3d 969 (La. Ct. App. 2023).
La. Rev. Stat. § 38:2191(C): 3 cases
Woodrow Wilson Constr. LLC v. Orleans Par. Sch. Bd., 245 So. 3d 1 (La. Ct. App. 2018). “R.S. 38:2191 applies and the statutory requirements have been met, we find the trial court erred in denying the petition for a writ of mandamus.”
Wallace C. Drennan, Inc. Versus Timothy P. Kerner, in His Capacity as Mayor of the Town of Lafitte & the Town of Lafitte, 409 So. 3d 893 (La. Ct. App. 2024). “R.S. 38:2191 of the Louisiana Public Works Act, a claim which Lafitte contends has been properly dismissed, as now barred by res judicata.”
Bossier Par. v. Boggs & Poole Contracting Grp., Inc., 429 So. 3d 885 (La. Ct. App. 2026).
La. Rev. Stat. § 38:2191(D): 11 cases
Woodrow Wilson Constr. LLC v. Orleans Par. Sch. Bd., 245 So. 3d 1 (La. Ct. App. 2018). “R.S. 38:2191 applies and the statutory requirements have been met, we find the trial court erred in denying the petition for a writ of mandamus.”
Wallace C. Drennan, Inc. v. St. Charles Par., 202 So. 3d 535 (La. Ct. App. 2016). “R.S. 38:2191. Id. On September 29, 2015, Drennan filed its third petition for writ of mandamus.”
Quality Design & Constr., Inc. v. City of Gonzales, 146 So. 3d 567 (La. Ct. App. 2014). “R.S. 38:2191, on which QDC’s arguments rely, provides as follows: A.”
St. Bernard Port v. Guy Hopkins Constr. Co., 220 So. 3d 6 (La. Ct. App. 2017). “R.S. 38:2191 (D) is conditioned on appropriated funds remaining available.”
Wallace C. Drennan, Inc. Versus Timothy P. Kerner, in His Capacity as Mayor of the Town of Lafitte & the Town of Lafitte, 409 So. 3d 893 (La. Ct. App. 2024). “R.S. 38:2191 of the Louisiana Public Works Act, a claim which Lafitte contends has been properly dismissed, as now barred by res judicata.”
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.