assertion_id,filing_id,assertion
1023,60,The jury is presumed to have followed the court's instructions requiring unanimity before answering Q17
1024,60,"The jury's answer to Q19 was predicated on a unanimous answer to Q17, providing affirmative evidence Q17 was unanimous"
1025,60,Kassab waived any complaint about the jury's unanimity by not objecting before the jury was discharged
1026,60,"Under USAA Texas Lloyds, the party relying on the conflicting answer to avoid the effect of answers establishing liability bore the burden to object before jury discharge"
1027,60,Stover v. ADM Milling Co. is directly on point — exemplary damages upheld where predicate questions not separately certified as unanimous because jury later unanimously answered questions predicated on those answers
1028,60,Redwine v. Peckinpaugh is distinguishable because it involved a single cause of action and the court actually polled the jury confirming non-unanimity
1029,60,"Bruce v. Oscar Renda: because not all of the verdict needed to be unanimous, a general certificate of non-unanimity is not in conflict with exemplary damages"
1030,60,Bryan v. Papalia illustrates proper procedure — trial court sent jury back to clarify unanimity certificate
1031,60,TUTSA 'actual loss' is broad and encompasses consequential losses including attorneys' fees from separate proceedings
1032,60,A flexible and imaginative approach is applied to trade secret damages calculations
1033,60,Attorneys' fees from a separate lawsuit incurred as the result of defendant's wrongful conduct constitute actual damages (Akin Gump)
1034,60,"Kassab's Texas caselaw citations concern fees in the same lawsuit, which is distinguishable from fees in separate proceedings"
1035,60,Martin-Simon was cited for a proposition subsequently overruled by Akin Gump
1036,60,Riner v. Neumann does not mention the tort of another doctrine at all — it addressed the American Rule on same-case fees
1037,60,"The jury assigned Pohl 0% fault in Q4, the proportionate responsibility question specifically tied to the trade secrets claim"
1038,60,Q3 on Pohl's wrongful conduct was not tied to misappropriation of trade secrets — jury specifically asked if they should answer Q3 even if no trade secrets existed
1039,60,"With agreement of Kassab's counsel, the Court instructed the jury to answer Q3 even if they answered 'No' to both parts of Q1"
1040,60,TUTSA explicitly authorizes recovery of both actual loss and unjust enrichment not taken into account in computing actual loss
1041,60,"The jury was specifically instructed not to award 'any sum of money on any element if you have otherwise, under some other element in this question, awarded a sum of money for the same loss'"
1042,60,"Published Texas appellate courts (Guillory, Stephens) reject the premise that Chapter 33 supersedes conspiracy joint and several liability"
1043,60,Conspiracy does not provide a 'conflicting remedy' — it merely makes damages joint and several
1044,60,"Kassab himself requested Q4 (proportionate responsibility) be included in the jury charge, showing TUTSA permits modification of remedy without preemption"
1045,60,"Kassab obtained Pohl's trade secrets from Favre through the November 2016 agreement, not from Precision"
1046,60,"The jury found Favre bore responsibility for misappropriation, which is fatal to Kassab's chain-of-liability argument"
1047,60,Kassab designated Precision as a responsible third party
1048,60,"Jury could find Precision obtained information lawfully while working for Pohl, and separately find Kassab's post-acquisition use/disclosure constituted misappropriation"