|
Edited on Wed Jun-02-04 07:12 PM by htuttle
Which lead to this article: http://www.walmartwatch.com/know/view.cfm?id=841 CONTACT: Sharp Law Firm-Jim Sharp 713/869-0090 Fax 713/869-6060 e-mail sharplaw@earthlink.net
$13 Million Malicious Prosecution Verdict Aguilera v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wayne Cruickshank, Cause No. DC-95-61
Rio Grande City, Texas Working to almost midnight Friday night, October 5, the jury in the 229th District Court, Rio Grande City, Starr County, Texas, returned a verdict that awarded the family of Mrs. Irene Aguilera $13 Million and found both Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Wayne Cruickshank, a Wal-Mart loss prevention investigator, liable for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Pre-judgment interest would increase the jury award to $20.8 Million. Additionally, the jury found Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. liable for negligent hiring. Despite the fact Mrs. Aguilera was at home on her front porch more than two hundred miles at the time of the alleged 'theft' underlying the prosecution, Wal-Mart’s Cruickshank identified her as being in his store. Both Wal-Mart and its loss prevention investigator further claimed that the store’s own videotape would conclusively prove Mrs. Aguilera’s presence. They stated that this evidence had been turned over to the police and that a signed evidence receipt was obtained from the police. Both police and prosecutors denied having ever received any video from Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart claims it 'lost' the evidence receipt supposedly signed by the police.
(snip)
Representing the Aguilera family were Jim Sharp, Sharp Law Firm, Houston, Texas; joined by local counsel Ms. Ana Lisa Garza, Ramirez & Garza, Rio Grande City, Texas; Mr. Calixtro Villarreal, Rio Grande City, Texas; Mr. Jose Luis Ramos, Hebbronville and Rio Grande City, Texas; Mr. H. P. Guerra, Rio Grande City, Texas; Mr. Romero Molina, Rio Grande City, Texas and Ms. Judy Pena, Lisa Garza, Ramirez & Garza, Rio Grande City, Texas
Texas. Ah, I see. He's gone to Texas to get a lawyer. (on edit) I don't think this is the correct Jim Sharp. I'm thinking it's the guy mentioned below, James E. Sharp.
|