Lehmann v. Laporte Trucking — writ application dismissed after settlement

Case
Gustave J. Lehmann, III, Gustave J. Lehmann, IV, Natalie A. Dewey and Shaun Michael v. Laporte Trucking Company, LLC, National Casualty Insurance and the State of Louisiana, through the Department of Transportation and Development
Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit
Judge
Wolfe (elected 2020); Stromberg (elected 2024)
Date Decided
August 5, 2026
Docket No.
2026 CW 0925
Topics
Settlement, Supervisory Writs, Dismissal
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Gustave J. Lehmann, III, Gustave J. Lehmann, IV, Natalie A. Dewey, and Shaun Michael brought an action against Laporte Trucking Company, LLC, National Casualty Insurance, and the State of Louisiana through the Department of Transportation and Development. The matter was pending in the 22nd Judicial District Court for St. Tammany Parish under case number 201813103.

The Department of Transportation and Development sought supervisory review from the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit. While the writ application was pending, counsel for the department informed the appellate court that the parties had reached a settlement and requested withdrawal of the application.

The Court’s Holding

The First Circuit dismissed the supervisory writ application. It acted on the relator’s representation that the parties had settled and its request to withdraw the application.

The court did not address the merits of the underlying dispute or decide any substantive issue raised in the writ application.

Key Takeaways

  • A pending supervisory writ may be dismissed when the relator requests withdrawal after the parties settle.
  • The dismissal ended the appellate writ proceeding without a merits ruling.
  • The disposition states only that the parties reached a settlement; it does not disclose the settlement’s terms.

Why It Matters

The disposition illustrates the procedural effect of settlement during supervisory-writ proceedings: once the relator requested withdrawal, the appellate court dismissed the application rather than adjudicating it. Because the court issued no substantive analysis, the ruling establishes no stated guidance on the underlying claims.

✉️ 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Your email address will not be published.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