filing_sections: 263

553 document sections with headings and summaries

Data license: Public court records

This data as json

section_id	filing_id	heading	summary
263	34	Response to No-Evidence Summary Judgment	Two sub-parts: (A) Pohl's global no-evidence challenge is procedurally defective — it simply lists 16 defenses and claims no evidence exists, without identifying specific elements lacking evidence, violating Rule 166a(i) and Timpte Industries v. Gish. A defective no-evidence motion must be treated as traditional motion under 166a(c), shifting burden to movant (Weaver v. Highlands Ins. Co.). Pohl hasn't met that burden either (Hillis v. McCall), and with burden unmet, Kassab need not respond (Chavez v. Kansas City S. Ry.). (B) Kassab has evidence for all defenses: June 2021 MSJ established limitations, res judicata, attorney immunity; August 2022 MSJ established Rule 17.09 immunity, judicial proceedings privilege, attorney immunity, limitations, unlawful acts bar, and that trade secrets are owned by Precision Marketing. Ladner testified client information was owned by Precision Marketing; Walker testified client list was Precision Marketing's 'work product.' Assumption of risk: Pohl placed trade secrets with Walker, a known convicted felon (pled guilty to federal program fraud), without confidentiality/NDA agreements. Contract-related defenses (release, accord and satisfaction, estoppel) don't apply to Kassab but incorporates Nicholson's response to extent applicable.