citation_id,filing_id,case_name,citation,court,year,proposition,cited_by
206,23,Walker v. Williamson,2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61185,S.D. Miss.,2016,Background on the Federal Court Case where Runners sued Pohl for breach of contract relating to 'public relations and marketing services' for Deepwater Horizon clients,Kassab
207,23,Kassab v. Pohl,612 S.W.3d 571,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2020,Evidence that Runners were paid over $5 million in barratry pass-through money; Kassab prepared State Bar-approved advertisement letters and hundreds of Mississippi residents responded,Kassab
208,23,Walker v. Williamson,2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59031,S.D. Miss.,2017,Runners contracted with Pohl to provide marketing and public relations services for automobile rollover accidents,Kassab
209,23,Cheatham v. Pohl,2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 649,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2022,Two solicited families presented evidence of illegal solicitation; a civil barratry claim under Section 82.0651(a) is a 'contract-based' claim; Cheatham reversed and remanded after wrongful summary judgment dismissal,Kassab
210,23,Walker v. Williamson,2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76488,S.D. Miss.,2016,Runners procured thousands of BP claims and approximately sixty motor vehicle accident cases for Pohl but Pohl did not pay the agreed share of fees,Kassab
211,23,Brumfield v. Williamson,634 S.W.3d 170,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2021,Brumfield case dismissed on summary judgment solely on limitations grounds; court rejected analogy between legal malpractice claims and civil barratry claims (at 205 n.34),Kassab
212,23,Gandy v. Williamson,634 S.W.3d 214,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2021,Gandy case dismissed on summary judgment solely on limitations grounds,Kassab
213,23,KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison Cty. Hous. Fin. Corp.,988 S.W.2d 746,Tex.,1999,Traditional summary judgment standard — movant must show no genuine issue of material fact exists,Kassab
214,23,"Sci. Spectrum, Inc. v. Martinez",941 S.W.2d 910,Tex.,1997,Defendant moving for traditional summary judgment must negate at least one essential element or establish each element of an affirmative defense,Kassab
215,23,Valence Operating Co. v. Dorsett,164 S.W.3d 656,Tex.,2005,Court must take as true all evidence favorable to the nonmovant and indulge every reasonable inference in the nonmovant's favor,Kassab
216,23,Marino v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.,787 S.W.2d 948,Tex.,1990,Res judicata does not apply when material facts have changed or new facts have occurred that alter legal rights or relations; judgment extends only to facts as they existed when rendered,Kassab
217,23,City of Lubbock v. Stubbs,327 S.W.2d 411,Tex.,1959,Estoppel by judgment extends only to facts in issue as they existed at the time the judgment was rendered,Kassab
218,23,Barr v. Resolution Trust Corp. ex rel. Sunbelt Fed. Sav.,837 S.W.2d 627,Tex.,1992,"A final judgment extinguishes the right to bring suit on the transaction or series of connected transactions out of which the action arose — if claims are from different transactions, res judicata cannot apply",Kassab
219,23,"Commint Technical Servs., Inc. v. Quickel",314 S.W.3d 646,Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2010,Logical relationship test for same transaction or occurrence; breach of contract and defamation claims met the test even though one spanned a longer time period because both arose from breakdown of the employment relationship,Kassab
220,23,Wells v. Dotson,261 S.W.3d 275,Tex. App.—Tyler,2008,"'Transaction' defined flexibly, comprehending a series of many occurrences logically related to one another",Kassab
221,23,"Encore Enters., Inc. v. Borderplex Realty Tr.",583 S.W.3d 713,Tex. App.—El Paso,2019,Only 'some of the facts surrounding the causes of action' need arise from the same transaction or occurrence,Kassab
222,23,"Rahlek, Ltd. v. Wells",587 S.W.3d 57,Tex. App.—Eastland,2019,"Declaratory judgment action to construe 2006 deed was logically related to unjust enrichment counterclaim arising from royalty payments made pursuant to the deed in 2013, despite time gap",Kassab
223,23,Rogers v. Ardella Veigel Inter Vivos Tr. No. 2,162 S.W.3d 281,Tex. App.—Amarillo,2005,"Distinguished — R.W.'s single-sentence averment was insufficient because it lacked prayer for relief, jurisdictional amount, cause of action, and counsel disclaimed affirmative relief",Kassab
224,23,Low v. Henry,221 S.W.3d 609,Tex.,2007,"Texas follows a fair notice standard for pleading; courts assess whether an opposing party can ascertain from the pleading the nature, basic issues, and relevant evidence",Kassab
225,23,Holman St. Baptist Church v. Jefferson,317 S.W.3d 540,Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2010,"Section 16.069 applies when the opposing party seeks affirmative relief; mere seeking of a declaration on limitations does not trigger § 16.069, but a request for return of stock was affirmative relief that triggered § 16.069",Kassab
226,23,"Ball v. SBC Communs., Inc.",2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 5286,Tex. App.—San Antonio,2003,Distinguished — § 16.069 does not revive claims brought as counterclaims in a suit for declaratory judgment alleging claims are barred by limitations; this is not a declaratory judgment action seeking no affirmative relief,Kassab
227,23,Ferguson v. Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am.,295 S.W.3d 642,Tex.,2009,Judicial estoppel precludes a litigant from taking inconsistent positions to obtain an unfair advantage,Kassab
228,23,Lindsay ex. rel. Lindsay v. South San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist.,983 S.W.2d 778,Tex. App.—San Antonio,1998,Statutory benefit claim was assignable because it bore significant resemblance to a common law action for breach of contract,Kassab
229,23,Nguyen v. Watts,605 S.W.3d 761,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2020,Civil barratry claims under Section 82.0651(c) sound in tort,Kassab
230,23,State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Gandy,925 S.W.2d 696,Tex.,1996,"Generally, tort claims are assignable",Kassab
231,23,"Zuniga, Jr. v. Groce, Locke & Hebdon",878 S.W.2d 313,Tex. App.—San Antonio,1994,An assignment of a legal malpractice action arising from litigation is invalid — but this exception does not apply to barratry claims per Brumfield,Kassab
232,23,PPG Industries v. JMB/Houston Ctrs. Ltd. P'ship,146 S.W.3d 79,Tex.,2004,Distinguished — PPG dealt with DTPA claims and carved out equitable assignments like contingent-fee interests to an attorney; concerns about jury confusion from mental anguish and punitive damages not present with barratry claims,Kassab
233,23,Wright v. Sydow,173 S.W.3d 534,Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2004,Court declined to use Disciplinary Rule 1.08 to void an otherwise valid settlement agreement entered into at arm's length,Kassab
234,23,"M.A. Mills, P.C. v. Kotts",2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 359,Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2022,"An agreement is not illegal, void, or unenforceable as against public policy merely because it contravenes a Disciplinary Rule",Kassab
235,23,Omohundro v. Matthews,341 S.W.2d 401,Tex.,1960,One who comes seeking equity must come with clean hands,Kassab
236,23,Ex parte Ubadimma,623 S.W.3d 530,Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2021,Counsel's statements are not evidence,Kassab