Recent Results

Case Examples of Recent Trials and other Results:

    March, 2013: Lance prosecuted a breach of contract and conversion case, on behalf of a former Fayetteville car dealership (Plaintiff) against a Missouri car dealership and its ownership (Defendants), in connection with a loan and the Fayetteville dealership’s (Plaintiff’s) vehicle inventory. This case was tried to a Washington County jury for 7 days, in March of 2013. The jury returned multiple awards (verdicts) in favor of the clients, totaling more than $600,000.

    October, 2012: Walter and Lance Cox defended a physician who was accused of committing negligence in the operating room. The case was tried to a Benton County jury for a week in October of 2012. At the close of the Plaintiffs’ case, the client was granted a directed verdict. Plaintiffs sought more than $10,000,000 in damages.

    April, 2011: Lance defended a local dentist who was accused of dental malpractice in a case in which the Plaintiff alleged to have suffered from a permanent injury to his inferior alveolar nerve in connection with an attempted tooth extraction. This case was tried to a Washington County jury for 4 days in April of 2011, and the jury returned a defense verdict. Plaintiff sought in excess of $700,000 at trial.

    April, 2011: Lance prosecuted a civil action against a commercial-contractor, in connection with an interior finish-out of a dental office in Benton County, Arkansas. Lance tried the case to a Benton County jury for 3 days, and the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the client, in the amount of $1,340,000.

    June, 2011: Lance defended a direct-action lawsuit against an insurance company, first filed and defended by Lance in Franklin County, Arkansas, and later dismissed and re-filed in Pulaski County. This case involved a young boy who entered the insured-church’s attic, unsupervised, and fell through the attic floor and onto the first floor ground below. Plaintiffs sued the church and its insurance company, based on the Plaintiff’s injuries, resulted in complex medical issues of a permanent nature. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment (re: procedural grounds in connection with a defective summons), was granted, and the case against the client was dismissed, with prejudice.