Case Citations

999 case law citations with propositions — what each case was cited for

Data license: Public court records

18 rows where cited_by = "Pohl" and filing_id = 17

This data as json, CSV (advanced)

Suggested facets: court, year

cited_by 1

  • Pohl · 18 ✖
citation_id ▼ filing_id case_name citation court year proposition cited_by
124 17 17 Regency Field Services, LLC v. Swift Energy Operating, LLC 622 S.W.3d 807 Tex. 2021 Defendant seeking summary judgment on limitations must conclusively establish that limitations expired before suit was filed; must negate discovery rule; claim accrues when defendant's wrongful conduct causes legal injury Pohl
125 17 17 Burns v. Rochon 190 S.W.3d 263 Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006 Conversion claim accrues at time of defendant's unlawful taking Pohl
126 17 17 Pemex Exploracion y Produccion v. BASF Corp. 2013 WL 5514944 S.D. Tex. 2013 Each possession of converted property is a new conversion (applying Texas law) Pohl
127 17 17 Sw. Energy Prod. Co. v. Berry-Helfand 491 S.W.3d 699 Tex. 2016 Trade secret misappropriation accrues when the trade secret is actually used commercially; use means commercial use by which the offending party seeks to profit Pohl
128 17 17 Agar Corp., Inc. v. Electro Circuits Int'l, LLC 580 S.W.3d 136 Tex. 2019 Civil conspiracy accrues as to each underlying tort when that tort occurs Pohl
129 17 17 Burchfield v. Prosperity Bank 408 S.W.3d 542 Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013 Res judicata requires prior final judgment, identity of parties or those in privity, and second action based on same claims that were or could have been raised; three-part test for privity: control, representation of interests, successor in interest Pohl
130 17 17 Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp. 919 S.W.2d 644 Tex. 1996 Three tests for privity: control over action, interests represented by a party, successor in interest Pohl
131 17 17 Rogers v. Walker 2013 WL 2298449 Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2013 Allegations of conspiracy alone insufficient to establish privity; movant must show one of three privity tests is satisfied; refusing to affirm summary judgment when movant did not state interest or evidence of representation Pohl
132 17 17 New York Pizzeria, Inc. v. Syal 53 F. Supp. 3d 962 S.D. Tex. 2014 Texas Supreme Court would not adopt blanket rule that coconspirators are always in privity for claim preclusion; courts must consider circumstances Pohl
133 17 17 McNeil Interests, Inc. v. Quisenberry 407 S.W.3d 381 Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2013 Privity through control requires active and open participation in prior proceedings to such extent it was clear the individual had right to direct them Pohl
134 17 17 Citizens Ins. Co. of Am. v. Daccach 217 S.W.3d 430 Tex. 2007 For res judicata, court looks to factual matters making up the gist of the complaint without regard to form of action; considers relatedness in time, space, origin, motivation; considers whether facts form a convenient trial unit Pohl
135 17 17 Barr v. Resolution Tr. Corp. ex rel. Sunbelt Fed. Sav. 837 S.W.2d 627 Tex. 1992 Subsequent suit barred if it arises out of same subject matter AND could have been litigated in prior suit through exercise of diligence Pohl
136 17 17 Youngkin v. Hines 546 S.W.3d 675 Tex. 2018 Two inquiries for attorney immunity: type of conduct and existence of attorney-client relationship at the time; conduct must be within scope of representation and not foreign to duties of a lawyer Pohl
137 17 17 Cantey Hanger, LLP v. Byrd 467 S.W.3d 477 Tex. 2015 Attorney immunity requires conduct within scope of client representation that is not foreign to duties of attorney; the kind of conduct in which an attorney engages when discharging duties to client Pohl
138 17 17 Landry's, Inc. v. Animal Legal Def. Fund 2021 WL 2021130 Tex. 2021 Attorney immunity requires conduct in 'uniquely lawyerly capacity' particular to the office, professional training, skill, and authority of an attorney Pohl
139 17 17 Tanox, Inc. v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. 105 S.W.3d 244 Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2003 Attorney-client relationship cannot be formed prior to 'meeting of the minds' between potential client and attorney Pohl
140 17 17 Kassab v. Pohl 612 S.W.3d 571 Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020 First Court of Appeals characterized Kassab's conduct as arising from commercial transaction involving legal services; Pohl argues this does not establish attorney immunity, as it addresses scope of transaction not scope of duties to client Pohl
141 17 17 RSM Prod. Corp. v. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer U.S. LLP 800 F. Supp. 2d 182 D.D.C. 2011 Distinguished by Pohl: in RSM, plaintiff attempted to assert the exact same conspiracy in a new action; here the conspiracy was not part of the Federal Court Case Pohl

Advanced export

JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object

CSV options: 

CREATE TABLE citations (
    citation_id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
    filing_id INTEGER REFERENCES filings(filing_id),
    case_name TEXT,
    citation TEXT,
    court TEXT,
    year INTEGER,
    proposition TEXT,
    cited_by TEXT
);