Judicial estoppel

Judicial estoppel is a legal doctrine to "bar a party to a legal proceeding from arguing a position inconsistent with one previously asserted."[1]

The Third Circuit explained:[2]

This doctrine, distinct from that of equitable estoppel, applies to preclude a party from assuming a position in a legal proceeding inconsistent with one previously asserted. Judicial estoppel looks to the connection between the litigant and the judicial system while equitable estoppel focuses on the relationship between the parties to the prior litigation.

Judicial estoppel most often arises when a party takes inconsistent positions in different litigation. But it can also apply where a litigant asserts inconsistent legal positions in different proceedings in the same litigation.

There are different theoretical notions about how to apply this important doctrine.[3]

There is the oft-cited requirement that in order to be judicially estopped from asserting a position contrary to a previously asserted position, a party must have "succeeded in maintaining that position." [4]

## References[edit]

1. ↑ N.M. v. J.G., 255 N.J.Super. 423, 429, 605 A.2d 709 (App.Div.1992). See also Levin v. Robinson, Wayne & La Sala, 246 N.J.Super. 167, 178, 586 A.2d 1348 (Law Div.1990); Oneida Motor Freight, Inc. v. United Jersey Bank, 848 F.2d 414 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 967, 109 S.Ct. 495, 102 L.Ed.2d 532 (1988); Shell Oil Co. v. Trailer & Truck Repair Co., Inc., 828 F.2d 205, 209 (3d Cir.1987).
2. ↑ 848 F.2d at 419 (citations omitted).
3. ↑ See generally Douglas W. Henkin, Comment, Judicial Estoppel--Beating Shields into Swords and Back Again, 139 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1711 (1991); Rand G. Boyers, Comment, Precluding Inconsistent Statements: The Doctrine of Judicial Estoppel, 80 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1244 (1986).
4. ↑ Chattin v. Cape May Greene, Inc., 243 N.J.Super. 590, 620, 581 A.2d 91 (App.Div.1990),aff'd o.b., 124 N.J. 520, 591 A.2d 943 (1991) (quoting Brown v. Allied Plumbing & Heating Co., 129 N.J.L. 442, 30 A.2d 290 (Sup.Ct.), aff'd, 130 N.J.L. 487, 33 A.2d 813 (E. & A.1943)); contra Levin, supra, 246 N.J.Super. at 189-90, 586 A.2d 1348 ("no New Jersey court has ever adopted a requirement that a party must 'successfully assert' the prior position to be judicially estopped from later asserting a contrary position.").

## Sources[edit]

* Cummings v. Bahr, 295 N.J. Super. 374 (App. Div. 1996)