Judicial Estoppel — Majority Rule — Prior Success, Clear Inconsistency and Impact on Judicial Integrity Requirements
Crawford v. Franklin Credit Mgmt. Corp., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13179 (2d Cir. July 11, 2014):
"Judicial estoppel generally prevents a party from prevailing in one phase of a case on an argument and then relying on a contradictory argument to prevail in another phase." Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211, 227 n.8 (2000). In deciding whether to invoke judicial estoppel, we look principally to see whether "a party's later position . . . [is] clearly inconsistent with its earlier position," and whether the court in the first proceeding adopted the party's position. New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 750-51 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). "[B]ecause the doctrine is primarily concerned with protecting the judicial process, relief is granted only when the risk of inconsistent results with its impact on judicial integrity is certain." Adelphia, 748 F.3d at 116 (internal quotation marks omitted) [Adelphia Recovery Trust v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 748 F.3d 110, 116 (2d Cir. 2014)].
Share this article: