Lewis v. Louisiana State University — First Circuit denied Larry English’s stay request and supervisory writ application

Case
Sharon Lewis v. Louisiana State University; Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University; Garrett “Hank” Danos, in His Individual and Official Capacity; Robert “Bobby” Yarborough, in His Individual and Official Capacity; Stanely Jacobs, in His Individual and Official Capacity; James Williams, in His Individual and Official Capacity; Mary Leach Werner, in Her Individual and Official Capacity; Robert Dampp, in His Individual and Official Capacity; Remy Voisin Starns, in His Individual and Official Capacity; Fieldon King “King” Alexander, in His Individual and Official Capacity; William Jenkins, in His Individual and Official Capacity; Taylor Porter Brooks & Phillips LLP; William Shelby McKenzie, Individually; Vicki Crochet, Individually; Robert “Bob” Barton, Individually; Leslie Edwin “Les” Miles, in His Individual and Official Capacity; Joseph “Joe” Alleva, in His Individual and Official Capacity; Scott Woodward, in His Individual and Official Capacity; Verge Ausberry, in His Individual and Official Capacity; Miriam Segar, in Her Individual and Official Capacity; John Doe (1-10), Individually; and Jane Doe (10-20), Individually
Court
Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit
Judge
Theriot; Greene; Edwards
Date Decided
October 21, 2026
Docket No.
2026 CW 1340
Topics
Supervisory Writs; Stay Request; Civil Procedure
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Sharon Lewis brought an action against Louisiana State University, its Board of Supervisors, numerous individuals in their individual and official capacities, and other defendants. The matter was pending in the 19th Judicial District Court for East Baton Rouge Parish as case number 708092.

Larry English applied to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit, for supervisory writs and sought a stay. The appellate court’s brief disposition does not identify the challenged trial-court ruling, describe English’s connection to the underlying litigation, or provide the grounds asserted in the application.

The Court’s Holding

The First Circuit denied the requested stay and denied the supervisory writ application.

The court provided no reasoning and did not state that it was affirming the trial court on the merits. Its disposition was limited to declining the requested stay and supervisory relief.

Key Takeaways

  • The First Circuit refused to stay the district-court proceedings or ruling at issue.
  • The court also denied Larry English’s application for supervisory writs.
  • Because the order contains no analysis, it establishes no stated rationale regarding the underlying dispute.

Why It Matters

The ruling leaves the challenged district-court action undisturbed and provides Larry English no interlocutory relief from the First Circuit through this application.

The terse writ denial should not be read as a reasoned appellate decision resolving the merits of the underlying litigation.

✉️ 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