Legal Theories

509 claims, defenses, counterclaims, and affirmative defenses

Data license: Public court records

6 rows where filing_id = 23 and party = "Kassab"

This data as json, CSV (advanced)

theory_id ▼ filing_id theory party role basis
195 23 23 Section 16.069 Revival of Time-Barred Counterclaims Kassab counterclaim Barratry counterclaims arise from the same transaction or occurrence as Pohl's conversion/trade secret claims because both flow from Precision's engagement to acquire clients for Pohl; Kassab filed within 30 days; Pohl seeks affirmative relief (not just a declaration), so § 16.069 applies per Holman
196 23 23 Res Judicata Inapplicability — Changed Material Facts (Marino doctrine) Kassab defense Res judicata does not apply when material facts have changed; Section 16.069 was not an available defense in prior litigation, constituting a change in legal rights; also logically inconsistent for Pohl to argue both different transaction (for § 16.069) and same transaction (for res judicata)
197 23 23 Judicial Estoppel Against Pohl Kassab defense Pohl argued to the Texas Supreme Court that the Assignments were valid (seeking dismissal of Brumfield and Gandy appeals) but argues here they are invalid; judicial estoppel precludes such inconsistent positions under Ferguson
198 23 23 Assignability of Civil Barratry Claims Kassab counterclaim Barratry claims under § 82.0651(a) are contract-based (Cheatham) and generally assignable (Lindsay); tort claims under § 82.0651(c) also assignable (State Farm v. Gandy); PPG carved out equitable assignments like contingent-fee interests; PPG's DTPA-specific concerns about jury confusion from mental anguish/punitive damages not present with barratry statute
199 23 23 Unclean Hands Against Pohl's Equitable Arguments Kassab defense Pohl committed felony barratry and cannot invoke equitable considerations to void the Assignments; one who seeks equity must come with clean hands (Omohundro)
200 23 23 Ethical Rules Cannot Void Otherwise Valid Contracts Kassab defense Under Wright v. Sydow and M.A. Mills v. Kotts, a violation of Disciplinary Rules does not void an otherwise valid contract; Rule 1.08(h) specifically allows liens to secure fees

Advanced export

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

CSV options: 

CREATE TABLE legal_theories (
    theory_id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
    filing_id INTEGER REFERENCES filings(filing_id),
    theory TEXT,
    party TEXT,
    role TEXT,
    basis TEXT
);