citation_id,filing_id,case_name,citation,court,year,proposition,cited_by
535,50,Lockett v. HB Zachry Co.,"285 S.W.3d 63, 72",Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2009,Texas courts have recognized adoption of a co-party's motion for summary judgment as a procedurally legitimate practice,Kassab
536,50,Kassab v. Pohl,612 S.W.3d 571,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2020,Cited for multiple propositions: (1) characterization of Pohl's claims; (2) runners paid $5M+ in barratry pass-through money; (3) Kassab's conduct 'arose out of a commercial transaction involving the type of legal services Kassab provides'; (4) intended audience were individuals with potential legal claims Kassab sought to represent,Kassab
537,50,Walker v. Williamson (2016 May),"No. 1:14cv381-KS-JCG, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61185",S.D. Miss.,2016,Background on Mississippi Litigation: runners alleged joint venture with Pohl and marketing services agreements,Kassab
538,50,Walker v. Williamson (2017),"No. 1:14-CV-381-KS-MTP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59031",S.D. Miss.,2017,Runners contracted with Pohl to provide marketing and public relations services for automobile rollover accident claims,Kassab
539,50,Walker v. Williamson (2016 Mar),"No. 1:14-cv-381-KS-JCG, 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 agreed share of fees,Kassab
540,50,Tex. Dep't of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda,"133 S.W.3d 217, 228",Tex.,2004,Purpose of summary judgments is to eliminate patently unmeritorious claims and untenable defenses,Kassab
541,50,"Lujan v. Navistar, Inc.","555 S.W.3d 79, 84",Tex.,2018,"Movant must show no genuine issue of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law; if carried, burden shifts to nonmovant",Kassab
542,50,Maldonado v. Maldonado,"556 S.W.3d 407, 414",Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2018,Genuine issue of material fact precludes summary judgment,Kassab
543,50,Ford Motor Co. v. Ridgway,"135 S.W.3d 598, 600",Tex.,2004,Genuine issue of material fact exists if more than scintilla of evidence establishing the challenged element is produced,Kassab
544,50,Crampton v. Farris,"596 S.W.3d 267, 274-76",Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2019,Allegations of wrongdoing in connection with prosecution of disciplinary actions are absolutely immune under Rule 17.09; claim for destruction of evidence related to grievance proceeding barred,Kassab
545,50,Burch v. State Bar of Tex.,"No. 07-19-00224-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 1409",Tex. App.—Amarillo,2020,Immunity under Rule 17.09 barred claim against attorneys for commission who purportedly engaged in misconduct related to a bankruptcy proceeding in connection with grievance,Kassab
546,50,"Landry's, Inc. v. Animal Legal Def. Fund","631 S.W.3d 40, 46-50",Tex.,2021,"Judicial proceedings privilege is absolute, covers all aspects of proceedings, and extends to communications preliminary to proposed judicial proceedings made in good faith. Protects communications 'necessary to set the judicial machinery in motion'",Kassab
547,50,Crain v. Smith,"22 S.W.3d 58, 62-63",Tex. App.—Corpus Christi,2000,Statements in letter sent before lawsuit began were protected by the judicial-proceedings privilege,Kassab
548,50,Laub v. Pesikoff,"979 S.W.2d 686, 691",Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],1998,"Privilege should extend beyond defamation when the essence of a claim is damages flowing from communications made in judicial proceedings; applied to intentional interference, civil conspiracy, IIED, negligence, and constitutional violations",Kassab
549,50,"Tex. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ray Ferguson Interests, Inc.","No. 01-02-00807-CV, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 2001",Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2006,Absolute privilege applied in deceptive insurance practices claim because damages theory was based on insurer's allegations in judicial proceeding,Kassab
550,50,Bradt v. West,"892 S.W.2d 56, 72",Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],1992,Attorney does not have a right of recovery under any cause of action against another attorney arising from conduct in discharge of duties representing a party,Kassab
551,50,Youngkin v. Hines,"546 S.W.3d 675, 681-82",Tex.,2018,"Attorney immune from liability to nonclients for conduct within scope of representation; inquiry focuses on kind of conduct, not alleged wrongfulness; labeling conduct 'fraudulent' does not remove it from scope",Kassab
552,50,"Bethel v. Quilling, Selander, Lownds, Winslett & Moser, P.C.","595 S.W.3d 651, 657",Tex.,2020,Criminal conduct is not categorically excepted from attorney civil immunity when conduct alleged is connected with representing a client in litigation,Kassab
553,50,"Cantey Hanger, LLP v. Byrd","467 S.W.3d 477, 483, 485",Tex.,2015,Attorney's conduct may be wrongful but still fall within scope of client representation; attorney was immune from conduct that occurred after litigation had ended,Kassab
554,50,Taylor v. Tolbert,"644 S.W.3d 637, 642-49",Tex.,2022,Even conduct 'prohibited by statute' is subject to attorney immunity if statute does not expressly abrogate the defense. Applied to attorney accused of violating wiretapping statutes,Kassab
555,50,"Highland Capital Mgmt., LP v. Looper Reed & McGraw, P.C.","No. 05-15-00055-CV, 2016 Tex. App. LEXIS 442",Tex. App.—Dallas,2016,Attorney immunity applied to claim that attorney engaged in malicious conduct with respect to illegal acquisition of plaintiff's proprietary and confidential information,Kassab
556,50,"Haynes & Boone, LLP v. NFTD, LLC","631 S.W.3d 65, 78-79, 81",Tex.,2021,Attorney immunity applies to claims based on conduct outside the litigation context and to conduct committed as part of business transaction,Kassab
557,50,"Clayton v. Oldcastle Materials Tex., Inc.","No. 09-18-00063-CV, 2019 Tex. App. LEXIS 1112",Tex. App.—Beaumont,2019,Attorney immunity applied to attorney's conduct including 'selling his legal services to the City as a potential client' and subsequent representation,Kassab
558,50,Schlumberger Tech. Corp. v. Pasko,"544 S.W.3d 830, 833-34",Tex.,2018,Defendant moving for summary judgment on limitations must conclusively establish elements of that defense; accrual occurs when tortious act caused injury even if all damages have not yet occurred,Kassab
559,50,KPMG Peat Marwick v. Harrison Cnty. Hous. Fin. Corp.,"988 S.W.2d 746, 748",Tex.,1999,Defendant must conclusively prove when cause of action accrued and negate discovery rule if it applies,Kassab
560,50,"United Healthcare Servs., Inc. v. First St. Hosp. LP","570 S.W.3d 323, 335",Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2018,"Cause of action accrues when tortious act committed and caused injury, or when facts authorize a party to seek judicial remedy",Kassab
561,50,Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Knott,"128 S.W.3d 211, 221",Tex.,2003,Determining the accrual date is a question of law,Kassab
562,50,Gen. Universal Sys. v. HAL Inc.,"500 F.3d 444, 451",5th Cir.,2007,TUTSA 'explicitly precludes treating trade secret misappropriation as a continuing tort',Kassab
563,50,"Guajardo v. Freddie Records, Inc.","No. CV H-10-02024, 2014 WL 12603179",S.D. Tex.,2014,Texas Legislature decided not to make trade secret misappropriation a continuing tort,Kassab
564,50,"Bianco v. Globus Med., Inc.","53 F. Supp. 3d 929, 938",E.D. Tex.,2014,"The tort of misappropriation, as viewed under Texas law, occurs at the moment of misappropriation",Kassab
565,50,"Agar Corp. v. Electro Circuits Int'l, LLC (Court of Appeals)","565 S.W.3d 12, 19-21",Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2016,Subsequent sale of misappropriated trade secrets does not restart the TUTSA limitations clock; continuing tort does not arise from repeatedly selling stolen information,Kassab
566,50,"Agar Corp., Inc. v. Electro Circuits Int'l, LLC (Supreme Court)","580 S.W.3d 136, 138, 144",Tex.,2019,Civil conspiracy claim accrues when underlying tort accrues and shares the same limitations period; conspiracy is a theory of derivative liability,Kassab
567,50,Rogers v. Ardella Veigel Inter Vivos Trust No. 2,"162 S.W.3d 281, 290",Tex. App.—Amarillo,2005,Continuing tort does not arise from copyrighting and repeatedly selling a song; injury continues with each sale but the causing act was the one act of copyrighting,Kassab
568,50,"Wells Fargo Bank Nw., N.A. v. RPK Capital XVI, L.L.C.","360 S.W.3d 691, 700",Tex. App.—Dallas,2012,Limitations period for conversion claim begins to run at time of the unlawful taking,Kassab
569,50,"Title Source, Inc. v. HouseCanary, Inc.","612 S.W.3d 517, 527",Tex. App.—San Antonio,2020,"To bring a successful TUTSA claim, the claimant must first show that it owns a trade secret",Kassab
570,50,"Morgan v. Clements Fluids S. Tex., Inc.","589 S.W.3d 177, 186-87",Tex. App.—Tyler,2018,"TUTSA requires proof of ownership, misappropriation, and proximate cause damages",Kassab
571,50,"Catania v. Garage de Le Paix, Inc.","542 S.W.2d 239, 242",Tex. Civ. App.—Tyler,1976,Plaintiff who has not shown title or right to possession of property allegedly converted may not maintain suit in conversion,Kassab
572,50,In re McCann,"422 S.W.3d 701, 704-05",Tex. Crim. App.,2013,Attorney is agent of client and client owns the contents of his or her file,Kassab
573,50,Thomson v. Findlater Hardware Co.,"205 S.W. 831, 832",Tex.,1918,Cited in McCann for attorney-as-agent-of-client principle,Kassab
574,50,In re George,"28 S.W.3d 511, 516",Tex.,2000,Attorney is agent of client and work product generated by attorney in representing client belongs to the client,Kassab
575,50,Hebisen v. State,615 S.W.2d 866,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],1981,Cited for interpretation of 'property' as meaning client's papers and other documents in lawyer's file,Kassab
576,50,"Resolution Tr. Corp. v. H___, P.C.","128 F.R.D. 647, 648",N.D. Tex.,1989,"Entire contents of law firm's files concerning representation belong to the client, including work product, notes, and legal memoranda",Kassab
577,50,Trammel Crow Co. No. 60 v. Harkinson,"944 S.W.2d 631, 635",Tex.,1997,"To prevail on civil conspiracy, plaintiff must show defendant was liable for some underlying tort",Kassab
578,50,"Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Johnson","9 S.W. 602, 602-03",Tex.,1888,Origin of the Unlawful Acts Rule: no action will lie to recover a claim for damages if plaintiff requires aid from an illegal transaction,Kassab
579,50,McNally v. McNally,"No. 02-18-00142-CV, 2020 WL 5241189",Tex. App.—Fort Worth,2020,Unlawful Acts Rule remains good law; uses 'inextricably intertwined' language,Kassab
580,50,"Andrew Shebay & Co., P.L.L.C. v. Bishop","429 S.W.3d 644, 648-49",Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2013,Unlawful Acts Rule applies when illegal act contributed to the injury,Kassab
581,50,"Dover v. Baker, Brown, Sharman & Parker","859 S.W.2d 441, 450-51",Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],1993,Purpose of rule is to ensure person should not entertain hope of indemnity for offense; rule applies even if defendants also committed unlawful acts,Kassab
582,50,Truyen Luong v. McAllister,"No. 01-17-00198-CV, 2018 WL 3651103",Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2018,Affirmed summary judgment under Unlawful Acts Rule where solicitation was essential purpose of barratry fee-splitting agreement; barratry contract is 'prohibited by statute as well as by disciplinary rule',Kassab
583,50,Sharpe v. Turley,"191 S.W.3d 362, 363-69",Tex. App.—Dallas,2006,Summary judgment affirmed under Unlawful Acts Rule where plaintiff who illegally obtained documents could not claim superior right to them,Kassab
584,50,Alderson v. United States,"718 F. Supp. 2d 1186, 1200",C.D. Cal.,2010,Cannot receive trade secret protection for information about ongoing illegal activities; 'there simply cannot be any trade secret about ongoing illegality',Kassab
585,50,Alderson v. United States (9th Cir.),686 F.3d 791,9th Cir.,2012,Affirmed district court's rejection of trade secret protection for illegal activities,Kassab
586,50,Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp.,"416 U.S. 470, 481-82",U.S.,1974,Underlying justifications of trade secrets law include maintenance of standards of commercial ethics,Kassab
587,50,Merckle GmbH v. Johnson & Johnson,"961 F. Supp. 721, 733",D.N.J.,1997,"Privilege to disclose trade secrets exists for disclosure of information relevant to public health/safety, commission of crime/tort, or matters of substantial public concern; policies parallel whistleblower statutes",Kassab
588,50,Denson v. Dallas Cnty. Credit Union,"262 S.W.3d 846, 855",Tex. App.—Dallas,2008,Unlawful Acts Rule bars tort claims inextricably intertwined with illegal business lacking proper license,Kassab
589,50,"M.M.M., Inc. v. Mitchell","265 S.W.2d 584, 585-86",Tex.,1954,Texas Supreme Court refused recovery for engineer who practiced without current license,Kassab
590,50,Farha v. Elam,"385 S.W.2d 692, 695",Tex. Civ. App.—Fort Worth,1964,Recovery denied for practicing architecture without license; permitting recovery would undermine licensure purpose,Kassab
591,50,In re Williamson,"838 So.2d 226, 234",Miss.,2002,Practice of law defined as little as advising a person of his legal rights under Mississippi law,Kassab
592,50,Darby v. Miss. State Bar,"185 So.2d 684, 687",Miss.,1966,Cited for Mississippi definition of practice of law,Kassab
593,50,Forbes v. St. Martin,145 So.3d 1184,Miss. App.,2013,Practice of law in Mississippi includes solicitation of clients and investigation of potential client's claim,Kassab
594,50,In re Guirard,11 So.3d 1017,La.,2009,Against Louisiana law for non-licensed person to solicit and sign up clients or investigate claims,Kassab
595,50,Davis v. Alabama State Bar,676 So.2d 306,Ala.,1996,Against Alabama law to provide assistance to person engaging in unauthorized practice of law,Kassab
596,50,The Florida Bar v. Meserve,372 So.2d 1373,Fla.,1979,Practice of law in Florida includes soliciting and interviewing clients; violation to assist unauthorized practice,Kassab
597,50,Brumfield v. Williamson,634 S.W.3d 170,Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2021,Barratry lawsuit dismissed on limitations,Kassab
598,50,Gandy v. Williamson,"634 S.W.3d 214, 219",Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2021,Barratry lawsuit dismissed on limitations,Kassab
599,50,Cheatham v. Pohl,"No. 01-20-00046-CV, 2022 Tex. App. LEXIS 649",Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2022,Court of appeals reversed summary judgment for Pohl because there was evidence of a 'barratry scheme',Kassab
600,50,Sw. Energy Prod. Co. v. Berry-Helfand,"491 S.W.3d 699, 710-11",Tex.,2016,"TUTSA damages generally comprise lost profits, defendant's actual profits, reasonably prudent investor value, avoided development costs, or reasonable royalty",Kassab
601,50,"Tony Gullo Motors I, L.P. v. Chapa","212 S.W.3d 299, 310-11",Tex.,2006,Texas law has not allowed recovery of attorney's fees unless authorized by statute or contract — the American Rule,Kassab
602,50,"Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, L.L.P. v. Nat'l Dev. & Research Corp.","299 S.W.3d 106, 119",Tex.,2009,Texas Supreme Court declined to address whether 'tort of another' exception should be adopted,Kassab
603,50,Martin-Simon v. Womack,"68 S.W.3d 793, 797-98",Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2001,Attorney's fees in prior litigation generally not recoverable as damages; only where agreement provides,Kassab
604,50,Alvarez v. Agyemang,"No. 02-19-00301-CV, 2020 WL 719440",Tex. App.—Fort Worth,2020,Equitable exception does not allow recovery of attorney's fees absent contract or authorizing statute,Kassab
605,50,Riner v. Neumann,"353 S.W.3d 312, 323",Tex. App.—Dallas,2011,Declined to adopt new equitable exception to American Rule given supreme court's faithful adherence,Kassab
606,50,Naschke v. Gulf Coast Conference,"187 S.W.3d 653, 655",Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2006,Declined to adopt 'tort of another' exception because not enacted by Legislature or adopted by Texas Supreme Court,Kassab
607,50,Massey v. Columbus State Bank,"35 S.W.3d 697, 701",Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2001,First Court of Appeals previously recognized 'tort of another' exception (cited in footnote as superseded by Tony Gullo and Akin Gump),Kassab
608,50,Stumhoffer v. Perales,"459 S.W.3d 158, 168",Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2015,Texas has long adhered to the American Rule prohibiting recovery of attorney's fees unless authorized by statute or contract,Kassab
609,50,"Per-Se Techs., Inc. v. Sybase, Inc.","No. 01-03-01293-CV, 2005 WL 1539291",Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2005,"Under 'tort of another' exception, party is not entitled to recover fees if not a wholly innocent party",Kassab
610,50,"Pacesetter Pools, Inc. v. Pierce Homes, Inc.","86 S.W.3d 827, 834-35",Tex. App.—Austin,2002,Trial court properly refused to award fees where plaintiff was found partly negligent in underlying suit,Kassab
611,50,Dayton Hudson Corp. v. Eldridge,"742 S.W.2d 482, 488",Tex. App.—Dallas,1987,"Party was not innocent party forced to incur costs, so not entitled to recover fees as damages",Kassab
612,50,"Sunchase IV Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Atkinson","643 S.W.3d 420, 422",Tex.,2022,Whether a party is entitled to attorney's fees is a question of law,Kassab
613,50,Howell v. Hilton Hotels,"84 S.W.3d 708, 711-12",Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2002,"Under Rule 166a(i), burden shifts to nonmovant to produce evidence raising fact issue on challenged elements",Kassab
614,50,"Boales v. Brighton Builders, Inc.","29 S.W.3d 159, 164",Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2000,"If evidence is so weak as to create no more than 'mere surmise or suspicion,' less than a scintilla of evidence exists",Kassab
615,50,"Kindred v. Conn/Chem., Inc.","650 S.W.2d 61, 63",Tex.,1983,Evidence lacking probative force is in legal effect no evidence at all,Kassab
616,50,Marathon Corp. v. Pitzner,"106 S.W.3d 724, 727-28",Tex.,2003,"Some suspicion linked to other suspicion produces only more suspicion, which is not the same as some evidence",Kassab
617,50,"Johnson v. Brewer & Pritchard, P.C.","73 S.W.3d 193, 210",Tex.,2002,Cited for suspicion-not-evidence standard,Kassab
618,50,"Freezia v. IS Storage Venture, LLC","474 S.W.3d 379, 386-87",Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2015,"Elements of conversion: (1) ownership/possession, (2) unauthorized control, (3) demand for return, (4) refusal",Kassab
619,50,Wiese v. Pro Am Svcs. Inc.,"317 S.W.3d 857, 862",Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.],2010,"Conversion damages: return of property plus loss of use, or value of property",Kassab
620,50,"Malone v. PLH Group, Inc.","No. 01-19-00016-CV, 2020 WL 1680058",Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2020,"Elements of TUTSA: ownership of trade secret, misappropriation, proximate cause damages",Kassab
621,50,Tri v. J.T.T.,"162 S.W.3d 552, 556",Tex.,2005,"Five elements of civil conspiracy: combination, object, meeting of minds, overt acts, proximate cause damages",Kassab
622,50,Haynes v. Bryan,"No. 01-20-00685-CV, 2022 WL 2024837",Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.],2022,Five elements of civil conspiracy,Kassab
623,50,Conmar Products Corp. v. Universal Slide Fastener Co.,172 F.2d 150,2d Cir.,1949,No remedy for period subsequent to disclosure of trade secret by issued patent (cited in UTSA commentary),Kassab
624,50,Carboline Co. v. Jarboe,454 S.W.2d 540,Mo.,1970,Recoverable monetary relief limited to period it would have taken misappropriator to discover trade secret without misappropriation (cited in UTSA commentary),Kassab