Source: http://azarlaw.com/practiceareas/civillitigation.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 08:39:25+00:00

Document:
Azar & Azar represented eight plaintiffs in a series of fraud, misrepresentation/conspiracy lawsuits. The cases were based upon a scheme by the defendants to induce the plaintiffs to purchase pay telephones which were to be set up in certain locations. This was supposed to result in a large return of revenue on plaintiffs investments. It was developed at trial that the whole program was a fraud, misrepresentation/conspiracy. The case was tried in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama (Montgomery, Alabama) and the jury returned separate verdicts for each of the eight plaintiffs in the amount of $3,500,000.00 punitive damages in each case. The jury returned various amounts of compensatory damages for each plaintiff.
Tunnell v. Key-Way, et al. , $3,500,000.00 punitive damages; $5,000.00 compensatory damages. Coldiron v. Key-Way, et al., $3,500,000.00 punitive damages; $3,300.00 compensatory damages. Talley v. Key-Way, et al., $3,500,000.00 punitive damages; $5,500.00 compensatory damages. Johnson v. Key-Way, et al., $3,500,000.00 punitive damages; $4,000.00 compensatory damages. Grubb v. Key-Way, et al., $3,500,000.00 punitive damages; $4,600.00 compensatory damages. Landa v. Key-Way, et al., $3,500,000.00 punitive damages; $2,500.00 compensatory damages. Mann v. Key-Way, et al., $3,500,000.00 punitive damages; $3,600.00 compensatory damages. Kines v. Key-Way, et al., $3,500,000.00 punitive damages; $5,500.00 compensatory damages.
DeBardelaben v. DeBardelaben: This was a claim for libel and slander against the ex-wife and her father. The verdict was returned in favor of the Plaintiff in the amount of $140,000.00. The case was upheld on appeal and the verdict was paid in full including interest. This is one of the largest libel and slander verdicts in Montgomery County, Alabama.
Nolen v. NeSmith: This was a claim for malicious prosecution. Plaintiff contended that she had been falsely accused of misappropriating money. The matter was investigated by the City police and presented to the grand jury. A no bill was returned and suit was filed by Plaintiff. Case was settled in the middle of trial against some of the defendants on a pro tanto basis upon payment of $300,000.00.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.