theory_id,filing_id,theory,party,role,basis
157,18,Evidentiary Objections — Conclusory Affidavits as No Evidence,Kassab,defense,Conclusory affidavits do not raise fact issues and are incompetent evidence as a matter of law; statements must provide underlying facts to support conclusions; Pohl's Declaration paragraphs 4-10 all fail this standard
158,18,Evidentiary Objections — Hearsay,Kassab,defense,"Statements by third parties (Ladner's admissions, Precision's expressed understanding) are inadmissible hearsay under Tex. R. Evid. 801(c)"
159,18,Evidentiary Objections — Lack of Personal Knowledge and Authentication,Kassab,defense,"Pohl was not a party to the agreement or email, was not present at execution, and provides no basis for authenticating Exhibits 1-2; affidavit must show competency under Tex. R. Civ. P. 166a(f)"
160,18,Statute of Limitations — Accrual in 2014 from Pohl's Own Testimony,Kassab,affirmative_defense,Pohl testified under oath that Kassab stole his information in 2014; cause of action accrues when tortious act committed even if all damages not yet occurred; Pohl chose not to file suit immediately
161,18,Statute of Limitations — Discovery Rule Inapplicable,Kassab,affirmative_defense,"Pohl never pled the discovery rule, so it cannot be relied upon. Even if pled, an office break-in is not inherently undiscoverable. Wagner & Brown requires inherently undiscoverable and objectively verifiable."
162,18,Res Judicata — Conspiracy Establishes Privity,Kassab,affirmative_defense,"Pohl's own allegations and judicial admissions that Kassab, Favre, and Precision are co-conspirators establish privity with parties to the Federal Court Case; supported by Palaxar, Seenyur, RSM, and SED Holdings"
163,18,Res Judicata — Same Claims in Both Actions,Kassab,affirmative_defense,Pohl's own sworn testimony (Mot. Exhibit 1) describes the same conversion and theft of client files and trade secrets at issue in this case; Pohl sued Precision in both actions for the same conduct
164,18,Attorney Immunity — Law of the Case,Kassab,affirmative_defense,The First Court of Appeals' characterization of Kassab's conduct as arising from commercial transaction involving legal services is binding law of the case; applies outside litigation context; even criminal conduct not categorically excepted