Legal Theories

509 claims, defenses, counterclaims, and affirmative defenses

Data license: Public court records

8 rows where filing_id = 18

This data as json, CSV (advanced)

theory_id ▼ filing_id theory party role basis
157 18 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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

Advanced export

JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object

CSV options: 

CREATE TABLE legal_theories (
    theory_id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY AUTOINCREMENT,
    filing_id INTEGER REFERENCES filings(filing_id),
    theory TEXT,
    party TEXT,
    role TEXT,
    basis TEXT
);