citation_id,filing_id,case_name,citation,court,year,proposition,cited_by
424,46,"Akin v. Santa Clara Land Co., Ltd.","34 S.W.3d 334, 344",Tex. App.—San Antonio,2000,"Elements of conversion claim: ownership/possession, unlawful dominion and control, refusal of demand for return",Pohl
425,46,Hunt v. Baldwin,"68 S.W.3d 117, 131",Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2001,Elements of conversion claim,Pohl
426,46,"Hassell Constr. Co., Inc. v. Stature Commercial Co., Inc.","162 S.W.3d 664, 667",Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2005,Affirmative defense is 'denial of plaintiff's right to judgment even if plaintiff establishes every allegation'; introduces independent reason why plaintiff should not prevail; does not rebut factual proposition,Pohl
427,46,Dugger v. Arredondo,"408 S.W.3d 825, 831-32",Texas Supreme Court,2013,Unlawful acts doctrine is no longer viable under proportionate responsibility framework; 'plain language of section 33.003 clearly indicates that the common law unlawful acts doctrine is no longer a viable defense'; doctrine originated with in pari delicto in contract context but was extended to torts,Pohl
428,46,Jefferson Cnty. v. Jefferson Cnty. Constables Ass'n,"546 S.W.3d 661, 666",Texas Supreme Court,2018,Discusses illegality defense in context of contract enforcement,Pohl
429,46,"Geis v. Colina Del Rio, LP","362 S.W.3d 100, 106",Tex. App.—San Antonio,2011,In pari delicto requires Texas courts to decline to enforce illegal contracts when contracting parties are equally blameworthy,Pohl
430,46,Denson v. Dallas Cnty. Credit Union,262 S.W.3d 846,Tex. App.—Dallas,2008,Unlawful acts doctrine: no action may be predicated upon an admittedly unlawful act,Pohl
431,46,Sharpe v. Turley,191 S.W.3d 362,Tex. App.—Dallas,2006,"If illegal act is inextricably intertwined with claim and damages would not have occurred but for illegal act, plaintiff cannot recover",Pohl
432,46,Carcamo-Lopez v. Does 1 through 20,865 F. Supp. 2d 736,W.D. Tex.,2011,"When illegal conduct arises in defense and not in plaintiff's case, unlawful acts rule will not bar claims",Pohl
433,46,Marathon Oil Co. v. Hadley,107 S.W.2d 883,Tex. Civ. App.,1935,"Plaintiff may recover if complete cause of action shown without proving own illegal act, even if illegal act incidentally appears",Pohl
434,46,Macias v. Moreno,30 S.W.3d 25,Tex. App.—El Paso,2000,Unlawful acts doctrine requires admittedly unlawful act; plaintiff may recover if cause of action not essentially founded on illegality,Pohl
435,46,Pyeatt v. Anderson,269 S.W. 429,Tex. Comm'n App.,1925,Illegal act must be proximate cause of plaintiff's injury for unlawful acts doctrine to apply,Pohl
436,46,Petta v. Rivera,985 S.W.2d 199,Tex. App.—Corpus Christi,1998,Proximate cause requirement for unlawful acts doctrine,Pohl
437,46,Truyen Luong v. McAllister,2018 WL 3651103,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2018,Distinguished: involved non-lawyer suing to enforce admittedly illegal fee-sharing contract; not applicable to Pohl's tort claims,Pohl
438,46,Tex. Beef Cattle Co. v. Green,"921 S.W.2d 203, 210",Texas Supreme Court,1996,Justification is an affirmative defense to tortious interference with contract; defense asserts defendant had contractual or legal right,Pohl
439,46,Knox v. Taylor,"992 S.W.2d 40, 59",Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],1999,"Justification is an affirmative defense to tortious interference, not to other tort claims",Pohl
440,46,"Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Fin. Review Servs., Inc.","29 S.W.3d 74, 81",Texas Supreme Court,2000,"If acts are 'tortious in themselves,' the issue of privilege or justification never arises",Pohl
441,46,"Lamont v. Vaquillas Energy Lopeno Ltd., LLP","421 S.W.3d 198, 218",Tex. App.—San Antonio,2013,"Distinguished: justification defense was applied to tortious interference claim, not trade secret theft claim; court stated justification is defense to tortious interference with contract",Pohl
442,46,"Money Masters, Inc. v. TRW, Inc.","No. 05-98-02017-CV, 2003 WL 152770, at *5",Tex. App.—Dallas,2003,Justification defense in antitrust context based on specific statutory authorization (Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 15.05(g)); supports conclusion that justification is not generally applicable to all torts,Pohl
443,46,Wood v. Wiggins,"650 S.W.3d 533, 556",Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2021,Unclean hands bars equitable relief; requires nexus and injury to person raising defense; 'clean hands maxim should not be applied when the defendants have not been seriously harmed',Pohl
444,46,"Austin v. Kroger Tex., L.P.","465 S.W.3d 193, 209-10",Texas Supreme Court,2015,Common law defenses of assumption of risk and contributory negligence no longer exist under Texas law; underlying concepts remain relevant only within proportionate responsibility statute,Pohl
445,46,Pepi Corp. v. Galliford,"254 S.W.3d 457, 462",Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2007,Express contract defense applies only when plaintiff seeks to recover reasonable value of services in quantum meruit and there is an express contract covering those services,Pohl