issue_id,name,cluster,relevance,summary,kassab_position,pohl_position,result,appellate_status,authorities
1,TCPA Applicability to Barratry Claims,Threshold,High,"TCPA motion denied at trial court, affirmed on appeal, SCOTX denied review.",Pohl’s claims based on Kassab’s exercise of right to petition; communications protected under TCPA.,Claims not based on protected activity but on illegal conduct (barratry); commercial speech exception applies.,Trial court denied TCPA MTD. 1st COA affirmed (Sep 2020). SCOTX denied review (Feb 2021).,Fully resolved. TCPA inapplicable to barratry-based claims in this context.,"Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ch. 27; Adams v. Starside Custom Builders, 547 S.W.3d 890 (Tex. 2018); Kassab v. Pohl, No. 01-18-01143-CV (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2020, pet. denied)."
2,Summary Judgment on Barratry Liability,Substantive,High,Kassab filed 3 MSJs (all denied); Pohl’s barratry partial MSJ went to trial.,No barratry occurred; client solicitation was proper marketing; no prohibited direct contact.,Undisputed evidence showed prohibited solicitation of clients within 31 days of incidents; per se violation of Penal Code § 38.12.,All Kassab MSJs denied. Pohl’s barratry MSJ proceeded to trial. Jury found barratry.,On appeal (1st COA No. 01-24-00220-CV). Opening brief filed Jan 2025.,Tex. Penal Code § 38.12; Tex. Gov’t Code § 82.065; Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a.
4,Responsible Third-Party Designations,Damages,High,"Kassab filed 4 RTP motions; only Favre/Precision designation granted (Aug 2023, one week before trial).",Settled co-defendants Favre and Precision Marketing bore proportionate responsibility for Pohl’s damages.,"RTP designation untimely, procedurally improper, and designed to confuse jury on proportionate responsibility.","RTP designation of Favre/Precision granted Aug 14, 2023 (Kassab’s only procedural win). Jury still found Kassab liable.",May be challenged on appeal (timing/prejudice). Jury verdict mooted practical effect.,Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.004; Tex. R. Civ. P. 194.
6,Exemplary Damages (Unanimous Finding),Damages,High,$3M exemplary damages awarded unanimously by jury (2x compensatory).,Conduct did not rise to level warranting exemplary damages; ratio excessive.,"Kassab’s conduct was knowing, intentional, and malicious; barratry is inherently egregious conduct justifying punitive award.","$3,000,000 exemplary damages (unanimous). Approximately 2x compensatory. Court entered judgment on verdict.",Under appeal. Kassab challenges ratio and evidentiary support.,"Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.003; BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996)."