Case Citations

999 case law citations with propositions — what each case was cited for

Data license: Public court records

22 rows where filing_id = 46

This data as json, CSV (advanced)

Suggested facets: court, year

cited_by 1

citation_id ▼ filing_id case_name citation court year proposition cited_by
424 46 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 46 Hunt v. Baldwin 68 S.W.3d 117, 131 Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2001 Elements of conversion claim Pohl
426 46 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 46 Petta v. Rivera 985 S.W.2d 199 Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 1998 Proximate cause requirement for unlawful acts doctrine Pohl
437 46 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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

Advanced export

JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object

CSV options: 

CREATE TABLE citations (
    citation_id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
    filing_id INTEGER REFERENCES filings(filing_id),
    case_name TEXT,
    citation TEXT,
    court TEXT,
    year INTEGER,
    proposition TEXT,
    cited_by TEXT
);