citation_id,filing_id,case_name,citation,court,year,proposition,cited_by
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