Summary
The Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit declined to consider Steven C. Perry’s supervisory writ application. The court found that the application appeared untimely and failed to comply with multiple filing requirements, including requirements concerning extensions, affidavits, service, formatting, indexing, supporting documents, and pertinent court materials. The court stated that supplementation or rehearing would not be considered but permitted a new application to be filed by January 30, 2026, subject to specified requirements.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the supervisory-writ application should be considered when it appears untimely and fails to comply with the Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal.
- Whether the relator's failure to provide the required record, including the bench-trial transcript and exhibits, prevented appellate review.
Holdings
- The court would not consider the supervisory-writ application because it appeared untimely and failed to comply with multiple requirements of the Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal.
- The court would not consider the writ application because the relator failed to include the bench-trial transcript and exhibits necessary for review, in addition to the violations of the Uniform Rules.
Key quotations
“Supplementation of this writ application and/ or an application for rehearing will not be considered.”
Factual background
The opinion concerns a supervisory-writ application arising from a bench trial in Ascension Parish Court. The relator did not include the bench-trial transcript or exhibits and failed to provide numerous documents and procedural certifications required for appellate review. The application also failed to show a timely extension of the return date.
Procedural history
Relator sought supervisory review of a ruling in Ascension Parish Court, Parish of Ascension, docket number 634673. The court of appeal found that the application appeared untimely because it did not include an extension of the return date order and also lacked required affidavits, formatting, index, statement of issues, challenged ruling, opposition materials, court minutes, trial transcript, and exhibits. The court stated that supplementation or rehearing would not be considered, but permitted a new application to be filed by January 30, 2026 if it included the specified materials.