filing_sections: 261

553 document sections with headings and summaries

Data license: Public court records

This data as json

section_id	filing_id	heading	summary
261	34	C. Illegality Defense	Two sub-parts: (1) Objection to Pohl's lack of supporting evidence — Pohl provides no evidence, only unsupported attorney arguments, and is unwilling to swear to any facts in an affidavit (Johnson v. Scott: motions and arguments of counsel are not evidence). (2) Pohl has not negated the defense — illegality is commonly applied to bar claims stemming from barratry (Luong v. McAllister; Plumlee v. Paddock). Pohl's own lawyers successfully used this exact defense in Duncan Litig. Invs. v. Baker, Donelson, and in the Mississippi Litigation. TUTSA requires plaintiff to own the trade secret with 'rightful, legal, or equitable title' (§ 134A.002(3-a)), but Pohl obtained information illegally through barratry, negating ownership. Same ownership deficiency applies to conversion and conspiracy claims (Freezia v. IS Storage). Pohl's string cite of unrelated authority (White, Lewkowicz, Niles, Reid, Montgomery Ward, Lawson) is distinguished as irrelevant.