Stefanov v. Kiser — declined to consider an apparently untimely and incomplete writ application

Case
Radoslav S. Stefanov v. Bryan K. Kiser
Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit
Judge
Wolfe (elected 2020); Stromberg (elected 2024)
Date Decided
August 10, 2026
Docket No.
2026 CW 0579
Topics
Supervisory Writs, Appellate Procedure, Filing Deadlines, Record Requirements
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Bryan K. Kiser sought supervisory review of a matter pending in the 19th Judicial District Court for East Baton Rouge Parish. The appellate record indicated a return date of April 24, 2026, but Kiser did not file the writ application by that date.

The application also omitted pertinent court minutes. The Court of Appeal further required the transcript of the December 8, 2025 hearing and any evidence introduced at that hearing.

The Court’s Holding

The Louisiana Court of Appeal declined to consider the writ application because it appeared untimely and did not comply with the documentation requirements of the Uniform Rules of Louisiana Courts of Appeal. The court could not determine whether the matter had been taken under advisement or whether a written judgment had been ordered, circumstances relevant to assessing timeliness.

The court stated that supplementation of the existing application and any application for rehearing would not be considered. It permitted Kiser to file a new writ application containing all pertinent documentation, proof that the original application was timely, and a copy of the ruling. Any new application must be filed by September 9, 2026, and comply with the applicable appellate rules.

Key Takeaways

  • A supervisory writ application must be filed by the return date or include documentation establishing why it was timely.
  • The application must contain the pertinent court minutes, hearing transcripts, and evidence necessary for appellate review.
  • The court would not consider supplementation or rehearing, but allowed a complete new application to be filed by September 9, 2026.

Why It Matters

The ruling underscores that Louisiana supervisory-writ practice demands strict attention to filing deadlines and record completeness. An appellate court may decline to reach the merits when it cannot verify timeliness or evaluate the challenged proceedings from the submitted materials.

Although the existing application was not considered, the court provided a limited opportunity to submit a new, fully documented application within a specified deadline.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top