filing_sections: 179

553 document sections with headings and summaries

Data license: Public court records

This data as json

section_id	filing_id	heading	summary
179	23	C.2. Assignments are not invalid as a matter of law	Civil barratry claims under § 82.0651(a) are contract-based per Cheatham, and contract claims are generally assignable (Lindsay). Claims under § 82.0651(c) sound in tort (Nguyen v. Watts), and tort claims are also generally assignable (State Farm v. Gandy). Two exceptions discussed: (1) legal malpractice assignments invalid (Zuniga) — but Brumfield court rejected analogy between malpractice and barratry because solicitation occurs before attorney-client relationship; (2) DTPA claims not assignable (PPG) — but barratry claims are not DTPA claims (Pohl himself argued this to Texas Supreme Court). PPG carved out equitable assignments like contingent-fee interests, which is what these Assignments are. PPG concerns about jury confusion from mental anguish/punitive damages absent because barratry statute only provides actual damages, attorney's fees, disgorgement, and civil penalties.