In Latiolais V

In Latiolais v. Cravins , the court held that

A) the presiding judge's comments demonstrated that he was impartial, and did not abuse his discretion in dismissing Cravins and in allowing the jury to hear testimony about the content of the settlement agreement.
B) the federal court was an inappropriate forum to litigate a controversy that stemmed from a domestic dispute.
C) there was no evidence that Cravins, a former state senator and current mayor of Opelousas, and the sheriff's deputy had conspired to wrongfully deprive Latiolais of her civil rights.
D) the district court erred in dismissing Cravins and in allowing the jury to hear testimony about the content of the settlement agreement; the court vacated the district court's judgment, remanded Latiolais's action for a new trial, and ordered the chief judge of the Western District of Louisiana to reassign the case to a different district judge.