Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Wilson v. State Farm Fire Ins, 03-30445 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 03-30445 Visitors: 16
Filed: Mar. 08, 2004
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 8, 2004 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III _ Clerk No. 03-30445 _ WILSON W. WILSON, appearing in his capacity as the curator of rpi Christel W. Fontenot, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., Defendant - Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, Baton Rouge USDC No. 96-CV-3345-C _ Before JOLLY, DUHÉ, a
More
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 8, 2004 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III _____________________ Clerk No. 03-30445 _____________________ WILSON W. WILSON, appearing in his capacity as the curator of rpi Christel W. Fontenot, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., Defendant - Appellant. __________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, Baton Rouge USDC No. 96-CV-3345-C _________________________________________________________________ Before JOLLY, DUHÉ, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* We REVERSE and VACATE the judgment of the district court for the following reasons: First, the district court utterly failed to assign any written reasons for its ruling in this bench trial. FED. R. CIV. P. 52(a). We cannot affirm any such judgment without written reasons for the rulings. * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. Second, the district court committed reversible error when it, sua sponte, excluded the testimony of Christel Fontenot, finding her to be incompetent to testify. From the record before us there is nothing to indicate, notwithstanding her particular mental diagnosis, that she was incompetent as a witness. LA. CODE EVID. ART. 601. Finally, the evidence in this record will not support a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the judgment is REVERSED and VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith, including a new trial if required. REVERSED, VACATED, and REMANDED. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer