Legal Theories

509 claims, defenses, counterclaims, and affirmative defenses

Data license: Public court records

11 rows where filing_id = 34 and role = "affirmative_defense"

This data as json, CSV (advanced)

theory_id ▼ filing_id theory party role basis
260 34 34 Justification Kassab affirmative_defense Kassab was justified in obtaining information and pursuing barratry claims; justification based on exercise of legal rights or good-faith colorable right claim (Tex. Beef Cattle Co. v. Green); supported by right to investigate (Rule 13), right to pursue client claims (Taylor v. Tolbert), and right to report misconduct (Rule 8.03 / Rule 17.09)
261 34 34 Unclean Hands Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl seeks equitable relief (injunction per First Amended Petition ¶ 45, TUTSA equitable title per § 134A.002(3-a), equitable prayer per ¶ 50) and therefore must come to court with clean hands (Fetter v. Wells Fargo)
262 34 34 Illegality Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl obtained trade secrets through illegal barratry and unauthorized practice of law, negating 'rightful, legal, or equitable title' required by TUTSA; commonly applied to bar claims from barratry (Luong v. McAllister; Plumlee v. Paddock); Pohl's own lawyers used this defense in Duncan Litig. Invs. and Mississippi Litigation
263 34 34 Unlawful Acts Rule Kassab affirmative_defense If plaintiff was engaged in illegal act contributing to injury, he may not recover (Andrew Shebay v. Bishop); Pohl illegally solicited clients, split fees with non-lawyer, failed to protect client information; three experts confirm barratry; Cheatham court found evidence of coordinated barratry scheme
264 34 34 Criminal Acts Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl's barratry is a criminal offense; his criminal conduct bars recovery
265 34 34 In Pari Delicto Kassab affirmative_defense Both parties involved in wrongful conduct; courts may deny recovery to Pohl for his own illegal acts even if defendants also committed unlawful acts (Dover v. Baker, Brown); doctrine ensures wrongdoer 'should not even entertain the hope of indemnity' (Houston Ice & Brewing Co. v. Sneed)
266 34 34 Assumption of the Risk Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl placed trade secrets in hands of Walker, a known convicted felon (federal program fraud), without confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements; Pohl assumed risk of diversion
267 34 34 Lack of Standing / Defect of Parties Kassab affirmative_defense Pohl does not own the alleged trade secrets; Walker and Ladner testified the information was Precision Marketing's work product; Favre testified Precision Marketing owned client lists
269 34 34 Attorney Immunity Kassab affirmative_defense Established in prior MSJs; includes immunity under Tex. R. Disc. P. 17.09 and judicial proceedings privilege
270 34 34 Limitations Kassab affirmative_defense Established in June 8, 2021 and August 29, 2022 MSJs
271 34 34 Res Judicata Kassab affirmative_defense Established in June 8, 2021 MSJ

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
);