Legal Theories

509 claims, defenses, counterclaims, and affirmative defenses

Data license: Public court records

13 rows where party = "Montague"

This data as json, CSV (advanced)

theory_id ▼ filing_id theory party role basis
27 4 4 Special Appearance — lack of personal jurisdiction (Tex. R. Civ. P. 120a) Montague defense Montague Defendants are non-residents of Texas and challenge the court's personal jurisdiction over them via previously filed special appearance; this answer filed subject to that special appearance
28 4 4 Lack of Standing / No Duty Owed / Attorney Immunity Montague affirmative_defense No attorney-client relationship with Pohl; not party to underlying litigation or settlement; referral of cases to specialists is traditional legal service providing attorney immunity from liability; no basis to assert liability for conversion, trade secrets, conspiracy, or otherwise against attorneys discharging traditional legal tasks
29 4 4 Failure to State a Claim — conspiracy requires viable underlying tort Montague affirmative_defense Under Texas law, if defendant's liability for alleged underlying tort is foreclosed as matter of law, there is no claim for conspiracy (Frankoff v. Norman, 448 S.W.3d 75, 87). Plaintiffs' only link to Montague is bald assertion they 'knew' information was stolen, which has no factual basis.
30 4 4 Comparative Responsibility / Contributory Negligence — Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Chapter 33 Montague affirmative_defense Plaintiffs' own unreasonable actions charted the course for this dispute; Montague asserts right to reduction of liability based on comparative responsibility of Plaintiffs, other Defendants, settling defendants, and responsible third parties
31 4 4 Excuse, Legal Justification, and Good Faith Montague affirmative_defense Montague's actions were excused, legally justified, or taken in good faith
32 4 4 No Legally Cognizable Damages / Failure to Mitigate Montague affirmative_defense Plaintiffs suffered no legally cognizable damages and/or failed to mitigate damages
33 4 4 Failure to Satisfy Conditions Precedent Montague affirmative_defense Plaintiffs failed to satisfy all necessary conditions precedent to maintaining their claims
34 4 4 Estoppel Montague affirmative_defense Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel
35 4 4 Waiver Montague affirmative_defense Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of waiver
36 4 4 Unclean Hands Montague affirmative_defense Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands
37 4 4 Illegality Montague affirmative_defense Plaintiffs' claims are barred by illegality (Pohl's own illegal conduct)
38 4 4 Statute of Limitations Montague affirmative_defense Plaintiffs' claims are barred by applicable statutes of limitations
39 4 4 Chapter 41 Limitations on Exemplary Damages — Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Chapter 41 Montague affirmative_defense Montague asserts statutory limitations on exemplary damages

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
);