Welch v. USAgencies, Alexandria City Court, Civil Docket 98,643 (April 23, 2004)
The Plaintiff wrecked his vehicle and did $4,900.00 in damages to his car. The insurance company, USAgencies, refused to pay the property damages by claiming the Plaintiff was intoxicated at the time of the collision. Further, USAgencies claimed the policy of insurance expressly excluded any damage when the driver is intoxicated. However, there was no such exclusion contained in the insurance contract and, not to mention, no proof of intoxication. To avoid being penalized by the court, USAgencies settled the case for over $35,000.00. Thomas D. Davenport, Jr. represented the Plaintiff.
Smith v. Goins, 08-938 (La.App. 3 Cir. 07/30/08); 994 So. 2d 591
The Plaintiff, Smith is an incumbent politician who filed suit to disqualify the challenger, Goins, who was represented by Thomas D. Davenport, Jr. Smith argued that the challenger did not actually reside in the city. The court noted that the challenger was raised in the district; after completing law school in 2006, he returned to the district and continued to reside there until 2007, when he leased an apartment outside of the district. Nevertheless, the challenger continued to maintain a residence in the district and that was reflected on his driver's license, and he received mail at that address. The record established that Goins maintained significant connections to the address sufficient to signify that his residency was real rather than fictitious.
Wright v. 3P Deliver, L.L.C., 07-683 (La.App. 3 Cir. 10/31/07); 970 So. 2d 1171
Thomas D. Davenport, Jr., represented Mr. Wright, the Plaintiff. The parties entered into a contract, wherein the service provider, the Defendant, was to provide transportation services along with handling, loading and unloading of shipments. The service provider later filed suit claiming breach of contract. The business filed a motion to compel arbitration and to stay the proceedings. There was no disputing the contract contained an arbitration clause. The trial court found that the contract was intended as a contract of labor employment, and was excluded from the Louisiana Arbitration Law. The trial court found from the four comers of the contract that the parties intended that the service provider engage primarily in labor services comprising of transportation services. The appellate court ruled that the contract was a contract for labor, and was excluded from binding arbitration under the provisions of La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 9:4216. Loading, unloading and handling of shipments and equipment clearly required the application of physical force, or brawn and muscle. The activities provided for in the contract were accomplished through physical labor.
State v. Bell, 99-3278 (La. 12/08/00); 776 So. 2d 418
Defendant was convicted of armed robbery. The appellate court unanimously held that the trial judge erred when he admitted the evidence of the earlier robbery to prove identity. However, the appellate court held that the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt. The court held that the similarities between the two crimes was not so distinctively similar to the charged armed robbery that one could reasonably infer that the same person was the perpetrator of both offenses. In conducting the harmless error analysis, the court could not conclude with any confidence that the jury's guilty verdict was surely unattributable to the erroneous admission of evidence of a prior armed robbery committed by defendant, especially since the prosecutor exploited the inadmissible evidence in rebuttal closing argument. Thus, defendant's conviction and sentence were reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial. Thomas D. Davenport, Jr. and Kimberly Lanier represented the Defendant on the appeal to the Louisiana Supreme Court.
State v. Cain, 09-390 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/04/09); 2009 La. App. LEXIS 1877
The Defendant appealed a judgment of the Ninth Judicial District Court, Parish of Rapides (Louisiana), which convicted him of illegal use of a weapon, first offense, a violation of La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 14:94, and sentenced him to serve two years at hard labor, suspended, and ordered him to pay a fine and court costs.
The facts of the case were as follows: A sheriff's deputy drove up to Defendant's campsite to investigate a complaint, the Defendant stepped out from beside his truck and fired a warning shot in the air. Defendant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction because it was not foreseeable that the shot could have resulted in death or great bodily harm to a human being. The Defendant was intoxicated when he fired his weapon. However, he was alone on his own property. Further, he fired his gun only once and immediately cooperated with the deputy after ascertaining that he was a police officer. There was no evidence that Defendant's actions could have resulted in death or great bodily harm. According to the deputy, there was no one else around. The Defendant was facing toward his half brother's house, but fired straight up into the air, not in the direction of the home or in the direction of the deputy's person or vehicle. There was no evidence that Defendant pointed the weapon at anyone or anything when he fired it. The deputy was still in his vehicle and testified that he did not hear or see where the bullet came down and the bullet impact did not cause him to flinch or take cover. The Court of Appeal reversed the defendant's conviction and sentence. The Defendant was represented by Thomas D. Davenport, Jr. on the appeal.