citation_id,filing_id,case_name,citation,court,year,proposition,cited_by
142,18,"Ryland Group, Inc. v. Hood",924 S.W.2d 120,Tex.,1996,Conclusory affidavits do not raise fact issues and are incompetent evidence; interested witness's affidavit stating 'estimates' or 'believes' will not support summary judgment,Kassab
143,18,Stephens v. Precision Drilling Oilfield Servs. Corp.,2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 5700,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2013,Conclusory affidavits do not raise fact issues,Kassab
144,18,Dolcefino v. Randolph,19 S.W.3d 906,Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2000,A conclusory statement does not provide the underlying facts to support the conclusion,Kassab
145,18,E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Shell Oil Co.,259 S.W.3d 800,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2007,An affidavit is conclusory when it expresses a factual inference without stating underlying facts,Kassab
146,18,"Bavishi v. Sterling Air Conditioning, Inc.",2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 6271,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2011,Bare conclusions are not evidence and are not probative of any facts,Kassab
147,18,In re Cook,597 S.W.3d 589,Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2020,A client owns the contents of his or her file — contradicts Pohl's claim to own client file contents,Kassab
148,18,"Game Sys. v. Forbes Hutton Leasing, Inc.",2011 Tex. App. LEXIS 4098,Tex. App.—Fort Worth,2011,Statement that software 'constitutes a trade secret' was conclusory and not proper evidence,Kassab
149,18,"Essex Ins. Co. v. Mason Bros. Constr., Inc.",2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 5740,Tex. App.—Amarillo,2004,Statement that 'it appears' some fact occurred was conclusory,Kassab
150,18,McIntire v. Ramirez,109 S.W.3d 741,Tex.,2003,"Affidavit must be clear, positive and direct",Kassab
151,18,Trico Techs. v. Montiel,949 S.W.2d 308,Tex.,1997,"Interested witness's testimony must be clear, positive, direct, credible, free from contradiction and uncontroverted to establish facts",Kassab
152,18,Casso v. Brand,776 S.W.2d 551,Tex.,1989,"Testimony not meeting requirements of being clear, positive, direct will not support summary judgment",Kassab
153,18,Laidlaw Waste Sys. v. City of Wilmer,904 S.W.2d 656,Tex.,1995,Witness found not competent to testify when making only conclusory statements (property metes and bounds),Kassab
154,18,Humphreys v. Caldwell,888 S.W.2d 469,Tex.,1994,Affidavit must be based on personal knowledge and state that facts are true and correct,Kassab
155,18,Kerlin v. Arias,274 S.W.3d 666,Tex.,2008,Affidavit did not show how witness could have personal knowledge of particular events,Kassab
156,18,Radio Station KSCS v. Jennings,750 S.W.2d 760,Tex.,1988,Affidavit did not show how witness became familiar with facts about operation,Kassab
157,18,"United Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. First St. Hosp. LP",570 S.W.3d 323,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2018,Cause of action accrues when tortious act was committed and caused injury or facts come into existence authorizing judicial remedy,Kassab
158,18,Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. Pasko,544 S.W.3d 830,Tex.,2018,Cause of action accrues even if all resulting damages have not yet occurred,Kassab
159,18,"Woods v. William M. Mercer, Inc.",769 S.W.2d 515,Tex.,1988,Party seeking to avail itself of the discovery rule must plead the rule,Kassab
160,18,"Wagner & Brown, Ltd. v. Horwood",58 S.W.3d 732,Tex.,2001,Discovery rule only applies when subject matter is inherently undiscoverable and objectively verifiable,Kassab
161,18,"Palaxar Grp., LLC v. Williams",2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138533,M.D. Fla.,2014,Conspirators deemed in privity for res judicata purposes,Kassab
162,18,Seenyur v. Coolidge,2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5895,D. Minn.,2018,Members of a conspiracy are deemed under the law to be in privity with each other,Kassab
163,18,RSM Prod. Corp. v. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP,800 F. Supp. 2d 182,D.D.C.,2011,Conspirators in privity for res judicata purposes,Kassab
164,18,"SED Holdings, L.L.C. v. TM Prop. Sols., L.L.C. (In re 3 Star Props., L.L.C.)",2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 22430,5th Cir.,2021,Additional authority supporting conspiracy-privity theory,Kassab
165,18,Youngkin v. Hines,546 S.W.3d 675,Tex.,2018,Attorney immune from liability to nonclients for conduct within scope of representation; inquiry focuses on kind of conduct not alleged wrongfulness; merely labeling conduct fraudulent does not remove it from scope; acquisition of clients and filing of lawsuits are protected actions,Kassab
166,18,"Cantey Hanger, LLP v. Byrd",467 S.W.3d 477,Tex.,2015,Attorney conduct may be wrongful but still fall within scope of client representation; immunity not limited to litigation context; majority of cases arise in litigation context but not universally,Kassab
167,18,"Bethel v. Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett & Moser, P.C.",595 S.W.3d 651,Tex.,2020,Criminal conduct not categorically excepted from attorney civil immunity when connected with representing client in litigation,Kassab
168,18,"Highland Capital Mgmt., LP v. Looper Reed & McGraw, P.C.",2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 442,Tex. App.—Dallas,2016,Claims for illegal acquisition of stolen proprietary information dismissed on attorney immunity; characterizing conduct as wrongful is immaterial to evaluation of the immunity defense,Kassab
169,18,Kassab v. Pohl,612 S.W.3d 571,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2020,Characterized Kassab's conduct as 'statements or conduct that arose out of a commercial transaction involving the type of legal services Kassab provides'; intended audience were potential clients to whom Kassab offered legal services; this is the law of the case per Kassab,Kassab
170,18,"Haynes & Boone, LLP v. NFTD, LLC",2021 Tex. LEXIS 423,Tex.,2021,Attorney immunity applies to claims based on conduct outside the litigation context,Kassab
171,18,"Santiago v. Mackie Wolf Zientz & Mann, P.C.",2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 2092,Tex. App.—Dallas,2017,Texas courts have recognized attorney immunity applies outside of the litigation context,Kassab
172,18,Sacks v. Hall,2014 Tex. App. LEXIS 12570,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2014,Attorney not liable for filing confidential records; not action foreign to duties of attorney,Kassab
173,18,Bradt v. West,892 S.W.2d 56,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],1992,Attorney does not have a right of recovery against another attorney for conduct in discharge of duties representing a party,Kassab