theory_id,filing_id,theory,party,role,basis
502,68,"Presumption jury followed unanimity instructions (Columbia Rio Grande, Bruce, Stover)",Pohl,claim,Jury instructed to only answer Q17 'Yes' if unanimous and to only answer Q19 if unanimous on Q17; jury's affirmative answers demonstrate unanimity
503,68,"Harmonization of jury findings (Menchaca, Bender, Luna, Jackson)",Pohl,claim,Court must reasonably construe jury findings to harmonize them; failure to do so is reversible error
504,68,"Waiver of alleged verdict conflict (Menchaca, Burbage, Fleet, R. 295)",Pohl,claim,Kassab failed to object before jury discharged; party relying on conflicting answers bears burden to timely object
505,68,TUTSA actual loss encompasses consequential damages including separate-proceeding attorney fees,Pohl,claim,Broad plain meaning of 'actual loss'; flexible and imaginative approach (Sw. Energy); distinguished from same-lawsuit fees; Akin Gump permits recovery
506,68,Tort of another doctrine (Dixon Fin. Servs.),Pohl,claim,"Equitable recovery of attorney fees when party required to defend prior action as consequence of wrongful act; no wholly innocent party element (Naschke, Brannan Paving)"
507,68,TUTSA authorizes both actual loss and unjust enrichment (§ 134A.004(a)),Pohl,claim,"Statute expressly permits both; market value = forward loss, development costs = past unjust enrichment; not duplicative because unjust enrichment disgorges gains rather than compensating loss"
508,68,"Conspiracy as rule of vicarious liability, not preempted (Agear Corp.)",Pohl,claim,"Not independent tort but rule of joint liability; Chapter 33 doesn't supersede (Guillory, Stephens); no conflicting remedy — merely makes TUTSA damages joint and several"
509,68,Pohl is prevailing party entitled to TUTSA attorney fees (§ 134A.005),Pohl,claim,Actual damages over $1.4M greatly exceed $765K settlement credit