citation_id,filing_id,case_name,citation,court,year,proposition,cited_by
30,9,In re Lipsky,460 S.W.3d 579,Texas Supreme Court,2015,"TCPA is intended to dismiss lawsuits designed to chill First Amendment rights, not to dismiss meritorious lawsuits; prima facie case requires 'minimum quantum of evidence' supporting rational inference allegation is true; pleading showing factual basis for claim is sufficient to resist TCPA motion",Pohl
31,9,"Wayne Dolcefino & Dolcefino Communications, LLC v. Cypress Creek EMS",540 S.W.3d 194,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2017,Courts use a two-step procedure for TCPA dismissal; must view evidence in light most favorable to nonmovant; must show connection between claims and alleged protected conduct,Pohl
32,9,ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. Coleman,512 S.W.3d 895,Texas Supreme Court,2017,Legislature included expedited manner for dismissing claims brought to intimidate or silence defendants' First Amendment rights,Pohl
33,9,"LFMC Enterprises, LLC v. Baker",546 S.W.3d 893,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2018,"Movant bears burden of demonstrating TCPA applicability by preponderance of evidence; rights being protected must be the party's own rights, not a third party's; defendant must demonstrate specific connection between claim and protected right",Pohl
34,9,Hersh v. Tatum,526 S.W.3d 462,Texas Supreme Court,2017,"Basis of a legal action is determined by the plaintiff's allegations, not the defendant's admissions or denials; petition is the 'best and all-sufficient evidence of the nature of the action'",Pohl
35,9,Sloat v. Rathbun,513 S.W.3d 500,Tex. App.—Austin,2015,Courts should not blindly accept defendants' attempts to characterize claims as implicating protected expression; should favor conclusion that claims are not predicated on protected expression; defendant's activities not factually predicate for claims are not pertinent to the inquiry,Pohl
36,9,Castleman v. Internet Money Ltd.,546 S.W.3d 684,Texas Supreme Court,2018,"Four-part test for commercial speech exception: (1) defendant primarily engaged in selling/leasing goods or services, (2) conduct in defendant's capacity as seller, (3) arose out of commercial transaction involving defendant's services, (4) intended audience was actual or potential customers",Pohl
37,9,"Miller Weisbrod, L.L.P. v. Llamas-Soforo",511 S.W.3d 181,Tex. App.—El Paso,2014,Attorney advertising falls within the commercial exception to the TCPA,Pohl
38,9,"NCDR, L.L.C. v. Mauze v. Bagby, P.L.L.C.",745 F.3d 742,"U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit",2014,"Where a lawyer is primarily engaged in selling legal services and the speech arises from the sale of services to actual/potential clients, the solicitation falls outside TCPA protections",Pohl
39,9,"Hicks v. Group & Pension Administrators, Inc.",473 S.W.3d 518,Tex. App.—Corpus Christi,2015,Detailed pleading showing factual basis for claims is sufficient to set forth prima facie case under the TCPA,Pohl
40,9,In re E.I DuPont de Nemours & Co.,136 S.W.3d 218,Texas Supreme Court,2004,Prima facie case requires 'minimum quantum of evidence necessary to support a rational inference that the allegation of fact is true',Pohl
41,9,Stockyards Nat. Bank v. Maples,95 S.W.2d 1300,Tex. Comm'n App.,1936,The petition is the 'best and all-sufficient evidence of the nature of the action',Pohl
42,9,"Cantey Hanger, LLP v. Byrd",467 S.W.3d 477,Texas Supreme Court,2015,Attorney immunity protects actions taken while representing a client in litigation; Pohl argues Kassab had no clients at time of wrongful conduct,Pohl
43,9,Mayes v. Stewart,316 S.W.3d 715,Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2010,"Two-year limitations for conspiracy; Pohl argues limitations has not run because Favre-Kassab Agreement was November 10, 2016",Pohl
44,9,Collins v. Collins,2018 WL 1320841,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2018,"Distinguished — that case involved claims factually predicated on communications in a judicial proceeding (divorce affidavit), unlike Pohl's claims for conversion of stolen property",Pohl
45,9,"Reeves v. Harbor Am. Cent., Inc.",552 S.W.3d 389,Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2018,Distinguished — that case simply held the trial court must conduct a full TCPA analysis rather than summarily concluding TCPA does not apply; Pohl does not deny TCPA analysis is required,Pohl
69,15,In re Roser,2016 WL 2605686,Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2016,Mandatory stay under § 51.014(b) applies to all trial court proceedings including discovery,Pohl
70,15,In re Texas Educ. Agency,441 S.W.3d 747,Tex. App.—Austin,2014,Conducting hearings during mandatory stay was abuse of discretion violating § 51.014(b),Pohl
71,15,"In re Bliss & Glennon, Inc.",2014 WL 50831,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2014,Mandamus relief granted when trial court took action during mandatory stay under § 51.014(b),Pohl
72,15,Roccaforte v. Jefferson County,341 S.W.3d 919,Texas Supreme Court,2011,"Trial court actions taken in violation of § 51.014(b) stay are voidable, not void",Pohl
73,15,Bacharach v. Garcia,485 S.W.3d 600,Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2016,TCPA 60-day filing period begins from service of original petition and is not reset by amended petitions,Pohl
74,15,Wheeler v. Green,157 S.W.3d 439,Texas Supreme Court,2005,Lawyer's failure to meet a deadline is an elementary mistake that could warrant conclusion of intent or conscious indifference,Pohl
75,15,"LFMC Enterprises, LLC v. Baker",546 S.W.3d 893,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2018,Defendants bear burden of demonstrating TCPA applicability by preponderance of evidence,Pohl
76,15,In re Lipsky,460 S.W.3d 579,Texas Supreme Court,2015,"TCPA is intended to dismiss lawsuits designed to chill First Amendment rights, not dismiss meritorious lawsuits; defines prima facie case standard; 'clear' means unambiguous, sure, free from doubt; 'specific' means explicit or relating to a particular named thing",Pohl
77,15,"Wayne Dolcefino & Dolcefino Communications, LLC v. Cypress Creek EMS",540 S.W.3d 194,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2017,Two-step TCPA procedure; movant must establish connection between claims and protected conduct; evidence viewed in light most favorable to nonmovant,Pohl
78,15,ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. v. Coleman,512 S.W.3d 895,Texas Supreme Court,2017,Two-step TCPA procedure for expediting dismissal of claims chilling First Amendment rights,Pohl
79,15,Hersh v. Tatum,526 S.W.3d 462,Texas Supreme Court,2017,"Basis of legal action determined by plaintiff's allegations, not defendant's characterizations; petition is the best and all-sufficient evidence of the nature of the action",Pohl
80,15,Sloat v. Rathbun,513 S.W.3d 500,Tex. App.—Austin,2015,Courts should not blindly accept defendant's recharacterization of claims; should favor conclusion claims are not predicated on protected expression; activities not factual predicate for claims are not pertinent,Pohl
81,15,Castleman v. Internet Money Ltd.,546 S.W.3d 684,Texas Supreme Court,2018,Four-part test for TCPA commercial speech exception under § 27.010(b); discusses how the 'capacity' of the person is relevant to whether they were primarily engaged in selling goods or services,Pohl
82,15,In re E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,136 S.W.3d 218,Texas Supreme Court,2004,Prima facie case is minimum quantum of evidence to support rational inference that allegation of fact is true,Pohl
83,15,"S & S Emergency Training Sols., Inc. v. Elliott",2018 WL 6711322,Texas Supreme Court,2018,Defining 'clear and specific' evidence requirement under TCPA,Pohl
84,15,"Hicks v. Group & Pension Administrators, Inc.",473 S.W.3d 518,Tex. App.—Corpus Christi,2015,Detailed pleading allegations sufficient to establish prima facie case under TCPA,Pohl
85,15,"Prime Products, Inc. v. S.S.I. Plastics, Inc.",97 S.W.3d 631,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2002,Elements of a breach of contract claim,Pohl
86,15,Stockyards Nat. Bank v. Maples,95 S.W.2d 1300,Tex. Comm'n App.,1936,Petition is the best and all-sufficient evidence of the nature of the action,Pohl
87,15,Sullivan v. Abraham,488 S.W.3d 294,Texas Supreme Court,2016,"Movant bears burden of proof on attorney's fees including documentation of services, hourly rates, and time required",Pohl
88,15,Stine v. Stewart,80 S.W.3d 586,Texas Supreme Court,2002,Four-year statute of limitations for breach of contract,Pohl
89,15,Mayes v. Stewart,316 S.W.3d 715,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2006,Limitations periods for civil conspiracy claims follow the underlying torts,Pohl
124,17,"Regency Field Services, LLC v. Swift Energy Operating, LLC",622 S.W.3d 807,Tex.,2021,Defendant seeking summary judgment on limitations must conclusively establish that limitations expired before suit was filed; must negate discovery rule; claim accrues when defendant's wrongful conduct causes legal injury,Pohl
125,17,Burns v. Rochon,190 S.W.3d 263,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2006,Conversion claim accrues at time of defendant's unlawful taking,Pohl
126,17,Pemex Exploracion y Produccion v. BASF Corp.,2013 WL 5514944,S.D. Tex.,2013,Each possession of converted property is a new conversion (applying Texas law),Pohl
127,17,Sw. Energy Prod. Co. v. Berry-Helfand,491 S.W.3d 699,Tex.,2016,Trade secret misappropriation accrues when the trade secret is actually used commercially; use means commercial use by which the offending party seeks to profit,Pohl
128,17,"Agar Corp., Inc. v. Electro Circuits Int'l, LLC",580 S.W.3d 136,Tex.,2019,Civil conspiracy accrues as to each underlying tort when that tort occurs,Pohl
129,17,Burchfield v. Prosperity Bank,408 S.W.3d 542,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2013,"Res judicata requires prior final judgment, identity of parties or those in privity, and second action based on same claims that were or could have been raised; three-part test for privity: control, representation of interests, successor in interest",Pohl
130,17,Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp.,919 S.W.2d 644,Tex.,1996,"Three tests for privity: control over action, interests represented by a party, successor in interest",Pohl
131,17,Rogers v. Walker,2013 WL 2298449,Tex. App.—Corpus Christi,2013,Allegations of conspiracy alone insufficient to establish privity; movant must show one of three privity tests is satisfied; refusing to affirm summary judgment when movant did not state interest or evidence of representation,Pohl
132,17,"New York Pizzeria, Inc. v. Syal",53 F. Supp. 3d 962,S.D. Tex.,2014,Texas Supreme Court would not adopt blanket rule that coconspirators are always in privity for claim preclusion; courts must consider circumstances,Pohl
133,17,"McNeil Interests, Inc. v. Quisenberry",407 S.W.3d 381,Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2013,Privity through control requires active and open participation in prior proceedings to such extent it was clear the individual had right to direct them,Pohl
134,17,Citizens Ins. Co. of Am. v. Daccach,217 S.W.3d 430,Tex.,2007,"For res judicata, court looks to factual matters making up the gist of the complaint without regard to form of action; considers relatedness in time, space, origin, motivation; considers whether facts form a convenient trial unit",Pohl
135,17,Barr v. Resolution Tr. Corp. ex rel. Sunbelt Fed. Sav.,837 S.W.2d 627,Tex.,1992,Subsequent suit barred if it arises out of same subject matter AND could have been litigated in prior suit through exercise of diligence,Pohl
136,17,Youngkin v. Hines,546 S.W.3d 675,Tex.,2018,Two inquiries for attorney immunity: type of conduct and existence of attorney-client relationship at the time; conduct must be within scope of representation and not foreign to duties of a lawyer,Pohl
137,17,"Cantey Hanger, LLP v. Byrd",467 S.W.3d 477,Tex.,2015,Attorney immunity requires conduct within scope of client representation that is not foreign to duties of attorney; the kind of conduct in which an attorney engages when discharging duties to client,Pohl
138,17,"Landry's, Inc. v. Animal Legal Def. Fund",2021 WL 2021130,Tex.,2021,"Attorney immunity requires conduct in 'uniquely lawyerly capacity' particular to the office, professional training, skill, and authority of an attorney",Pohl
139,17,"Tanox, Inc. v. Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P.",105 S.W.3d 244,Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2003,Attorney-client relationship cannot be formed prior to 'meeting of the minds' between potential client and attorney,Pohl
140,17,Kassab v. Pohl,612 S.W.3d 571,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2020,"First Court of Appeals characterized Kassab's conduct as arising from commercial transaction involving legal services; Pohl argues this does not establish attorney immunity, as it addresses scope of transaction not scope of duties to client",Pohl
141,17,RSM Prod. Corp. v. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer U.S. LLP,800 F. Supp. 2d 182,D.D.C.,2011,"Distinguished by Pohl: in RSM, plaintiff attempted to assert the exact same conspiracy in a new action; here the conspiracy was not part of the Federal Court Case",Pohl
174,21,Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp. v. Auld,34 S.W.3d 887,Tex.,2000,"An opposing party should use special exceptions to identify defects in a pleading so they may be cured, if possible, by amendment",Pohl
175,21,Baylor Univ. v. Sonnichsen,221 S.W.3d 632,Tex.,2007,The purpose of a special exception is to compel clarification of pleadings when they are not clear or sufficiently specific or fail to plead a cause of action,Pohl
176,21,Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Garza,164 S.W.3d 607,Tex.,2004,Special exceptions are the appropriate vehicle to force clarification of claims when a party is in doubt,Pohl
177,21,In re Mem'l Hermann Hosp. Sys.,464 S.W.3d 686,Tex.,2015,"Special exceptions are the appropriate vehicle by which an adverse party may force clarification of vague pleadings, thereby narrowing the range of facts of consequence in the action",Pohl
178,22,"Houtex Ready Mix Concrete & Materials v. Eagle Const. & Envtl. Services, L.P.",226 S.W.3d 514,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2006,"Res judicata prevents parties and those in privity from relitigating a case adjudicated to finality; requires prior final judgment on merits, identity of parties or privity, and second action on same claims",Pohl
179,22,Gonzalez v. Guilbot,315 S.W.3d 533,Tex.,2010,A judgment is final for purposes of res judicata even if it is appealed,Pohl
180,22,"Igal v. Brightstar Info. Tech. Group, Inc.",250 S.W.3d 78,Tex.,2008,A decision based on the statute of limitations is a decision on the merits for res judicata purposes,Pohl
181,22,Livingston v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n,2020 WL 1646741,Tex. App.—Fort Worth,2020,Resolution on statute of limitations has no bearing on the preclusive effect of res judicata,Pohl
182,22,Samuel v. Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp.,434 S.W.3d 230,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2014,A party is in privity with a party to a prior action when the party is a successor-in-interest deriving its claim through a party to the prior action,Pohl
183,22,Amstadt v. U.S. Brass Corp.,919 S.W.2d 644,Tex.,1996,Successors in interest are in privity with plaintiffs to prior lawsuit,Pohl
184,22,Gandy v. Williamson,2021 WL 2149833,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2021,A claim for barratry accrues when a potential client is improperly solicited; the date of client's contract signature demonstrates when solicitation occurred; barratry claims are subject to up to four-year limitations; two-year limitations applies if no contract resulted,Pohl
185,22,Brumfield v. Williamson,2021 WL 2149335,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2021,Affirmed summary judgment dismissing barratry claims on limitations,Pohl
186,22,"Pitts & Collard, L.L.P. v. Schechter",369 S.W.3d 301,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2011,Section 16.069 is a savings clause intended to prevent a plaintiff from waiting until an adversary's valid claim was barred by limitations before asserting his own claim; applies logical relationship test,Pohl
187,22,Smith v. Ferguson,160 S.W.3d 115,Tex. App.—Dallas,2005,The essential facts on which the counterclaim is based must be significantly and logically relevant to both claims under the logical relationship test,Pohl
188,22,Freeman v. Cherokee Water Co.,11 S.W.3d 480,Tex. App.—Texarkana,2000,Claim requesting interpretation of a deed provision and counterclaim attacking validity of entire deed did not satisfy the logical relationship test,Pohl
189,22,Wright v. Matthews,26 S.W.3d 575,Tex. App.—Beaumont,2000,Counterclaim for breach of sales contract and action to quiet title did not arise out of same transaction or occurrence,Pohl
190,22,"T&C Constr., Ltd. v. Brown Mech. Services, Inc.",2020 WL 3866659,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2020,Section 16.069 did not apply where contractor's unjust enrichment counterclaim regarding Project 1 overpayment was not logically related to subcontractor's breach of contract claim regarding Project 2,Pohl
191,22,Rogers v. Ardella Veigel Inter Vivos Tr. No. 2,162 S.W.3d 281,Tex. App.—Amarillo,2005,A counterclaim must provide fair notice under Rule 47 to satisfy section 16.069's timing requirement; allegations must be sufficient to inform a reasonably competent attorney of the nature and basic issues of the controversy,Pohl
192,22,Holman St. Baptist Church v. Jefferson,317 S.W.3d 540,Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2010,Section 16.069(a) is intended to prevent a party from waiting until an opponent's valid claim is time-barred before asserting its own claim; courts have limited its reach,Pohl
193,22,"J.M.K. 6, Inc. v. Gregg & Gregg, P.C.",192 S.W.3d 189,Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2006,Section 16.069 allows parties already in the action to assert otherwise time-barred claims against one another,Pohl
194,22,"Ball v. SBC Communications, Inc.",2003 WL 21467219,Tex. App.—San Antonio,2003,"Courts apply the Code Construction Act when construing § 16.069; the court limited § 16.069's reach based on object, purpose, consequences, and public interest; public interest would be hindered by allowing circumvention of limitations",Pohl
195,22,"Swoboda v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC",579 S.W.3d 628,Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2019,Cited Ball's construction of § 16.069 with approval,Pohl
196,22,Tex. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rogers,351 S.W.3d 103,Tex. App.—San Antonio,2011,A statutory cause of action that does not explicitly provide for survival and is punitive in nature does not survive a plaintiff's death and is not assignable,Pohl
197,22,"PPG Industries, Inc. v. JMB/Houston Centers Partners Ltd. P'ship",146 S.W.3d 79,Tex.,2004,"Four-factor test for assignability of statutory claims: (1) statutory text, (2) statutory purpose, (3) related common-law principles, (4) whether assignment increases litigation; personal and punitive aspects of DTPA claims cannot be squared with free assignability; assignability of most claims does not mean all are assignable; exceptions may be required due to equity and public policy",Pohl
198,22,State v. Oakley,227 S.W.3d 58,Tex.,2007,A claim must be capable of surviving the plaintiff's death to be assignable,Pohl
199,22,In re Xerox Corp.,555 S.W.3d 518,Tex.,2018,Penalties are by their nature punitive,Pohl
200,22,Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Mktg. on Hold Inc.,308 S.W.3d 909,Tex.,2010,Assignments may be invalidated on public policy grounds; assignments that tend to increase or prolong litigation unnecessarily or are transparent devices to increase and distort litigation may be void,Pohl
201,22,"Am. Homeowner Pres. Fund, LP v. Pirkle",475 S.W.3d 507,Tex. App.—Fort Worth,2015,Courts should inquire whether notions of equity and public policy would vitiate the assignment of a claim under the circumstances; found assignment encouraged litigation rather than curbing it,Pohl
202,22,"LAKXN Income, Inc. v. TLC Hosp., LLC",2021 WL 3085755,Tex. App.—Fort Worth,2021,Assignments used as transparent devices to increase and distort litigation are subject to invalidation,Pohl
203,22,State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Gandy,925 S.W.2d 696,Tex.,1996,Courts have invalidated assignments that distort the litigation process,Pohl
204,22,Wright v. Sydow,173 S.W.3d 534,Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2004,Assignments made solely to circumvent settlement agreement releases violated strong public policy favoring voluntary settlements and were void; a court may consider whether assignment has tendency to injure the public good,Pohl
205,22,Newco Drilling Co. v. Weyand,960 S.W.2d 654,Tex.,1998,Initial partial summary judgment rulings become final upon the court resolving the remaining issues in the case,Pohl
237,24,Marino v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Ins. Co.,787 S.W.2d 948,Tex.,1990,"Distinguished — Marino dealt with a cause of action not recognized until after the first judgment (bad faith tort claim); here, the barratry claims existed and were adjudicated before the purported assignments",Pohl
238,24,City of Lubbock v. Stubbs,327 S.W.2d 411,Tex.,1959,Distinguished — Stubbs involved a new zoning ordinance and different 'present use' of land in each suit; here Kassab asserts the exact same claims that were previously adjudicated,Pohl
239,24,"Hernandez v. Del Ray Chem. Intern., Inc.",56 S.W.3d 112,Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2001,Courts focus on whether a claim existed and was 'a claim that was raised or that could have been raised in the first action',Pohl
240,24,"Commint Tech. Services, Inc. v. Quickel",314 S.W.3d 646,Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2010,"Kassab's own cited case states the logical relationship test 'is met when the same facts, which may or may not be disputed, are significant and logically relevant to both claims' — Kassab omitted 'significant'",Pohl
241,24,Smith v. Ferguson,160 S.W.3d 115,Tex. App.—Dallas,2005,Section 16.069 does not apply when the essential facts on which the counterclaim is based are not significantly and logically relevant to both claims,Pohl
242,24,"Ball v. SBC Communications, Inc.",2003 WL 21467219,Tex. App.—San Antonio,2003,Public interest would be hindered by allowing a party to circumvent limitations by relying on section 16.069,Pohl
243,24,Ferguson v. Bldg. Materials Corp. of Am.,295 S.W.3d 642,Tex.,2009,Judicial estoppel precludes a party who 'successfully maintains' a position from adopting a clearly inconsistent position; Kassab omitted the 'successfully' requirement,Pohl
244,24,"PPG Industries, Inc. v. JMB/Houston Centers Partners Ltd. P'ship",146 S.W.3d 79,Tex.,2004,The four-factor assignability analysis applies beyond DTPA claims; 'the assignability of most claims does not mean all are assignable; exceptions may be required due to equity and public policy'; risks of distortion concern the class of claims; legislature's silence on assignability 'can be significant',Pohl
245,24,Sw. Bell Tel. Co. v. Mktg. on Hold Inc.,308 S.W.3d 909,Tex.,2010,Assignments that tend to increase or prolong litigation unnecessarily or serve as transparent devices to increase and distort litigation may be void,Pohl
246,24,"LAKXN Income, Inc. v. TLC Hosp., LLC",2021 WL 3085755,Tex. App.—Fort Worth,2021,Assignments used as transparent devices to increase and distort litigation are subject to invalidation,Pohl
247,24,Kassab v. Pohl,612 S.W.3d 571,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2020,Kassab's citation to this case's discussion of 'past litigation' does not constitute competent evidence of unclean hands,Pohl
248,24,"M.A. Mills, P.C. v. Kotts",2022 WL 176125,Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2022,"Kassab misleadingly cited — court explicitly stated courts 'may deem these rules to be an expression of public policy, so that a contract violating them is unenforceable as against public policy' — the word 'may' gives courts discretion, not a prohibition",Pohl
249,24,Low v. Henry,221 S.W.3d 609,Tex.,2007,"Fair notice requires a party to be able to ascertain the nature, basic issues, and type of relevant evidence from the pleading",Pohl