green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.0 score
“the objective of the doctrine . . . is to prevent situations from arising in which one of two related decisions has to be wrong because a party took opposite positions and won both times.”
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Simo v. Home Health & Hospice Care
the objective of the doctrine . . . is to prevent situations from arising in which one of two related decisions has to be wrong because a party took opposite positions and won both times.
discussed
Cited "see"
Gens v. Resolution Trust Corp.
See id. 3 .See United States v. Levasseur, 846 F.2d 786, 793 (1st Cir.) (estoppel applies where party previously "obtained a litigation benefit”), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 894 , 109 S.Ct. 232 , 102 L.Ed.2d 222 (1988); see also Continental Ill.
discussed
Cited "see"
Gens v. Resolution
See id. ___ ___ 3See United States v. Levasseur, 846 F.2d 786, 793 (1st ___ _____________ _________ Cir.) (estoppel applies where party previously "obtained a litigation benefit"), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 894 (1988); see also _____ ______ ___ ____ Continental Ill.
discussed
Cited "see"
McCarthy v. Azure
See United States v. Levasseur, 846 F.2d 786, 792-93 (1st Cir.) (explicating doctrine of judicial estoppel), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 894 , 109 S.Ct. 232 , 102 L.Ed.2d 222 (1988); Patriot Cinemas Inc. v. General Cinema, Corp., 834 F.2d 208, 211-15 (1st Cir.1987) (similar).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Terry
See, e,g., United States v. Levasseur, 846 F.2d 786 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 894 (1988); United States v. Tom, 787 F.2d 65 (2d Cir. 1986).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Terry
See, e,g., United States v. Levasseur, 846 F.2d 786 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 894 (1988); United States v. Tom, 787 F.2d 65 (2d Cir. 1986).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re: Grand Jury
See, e.g., Grand Jury Proceedings of John Doe v. United States, 842 F.2d 244 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 894 (1988); United States v. Davies, 768 F.2d 893 (7th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Grand Jury Proceedings
(2×)
See, e.g., Grand Jury Proceedings of John Doe v. United States, 842 F.2d 244 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 894 , 102 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Robert Terry, United States of America v. Thomas S. Waldron, Robert Terry and David Wenger
See, e.g., United States v. Levasseur, 846 F.2d 786 , (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 894 , 109 S.Ct. 232 , 102 L.Ed.2d 222 (1988); United States v. Tom, 787 F.2d 66 (2d Cir.1986).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Subpoena Issued to Mary Erato Pursuant to a Request of the Netherlands Pursuant to the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Kingdom of the Netherlands on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1782 in the Matter of John Michele Erato and Victoria Erato-Aeillo, United States of America v. Mary Erato, Witness-Appellant, John Michele Erato and Victoria Erato-Aeillo
Id. at 224 (citing United States v. Jones, 683 F.2d 817, 818-19 (4th Cir.1982); In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Starr), 647 F.2d 511 , 512-13 & n. 4 (5th Cir.Unit A May 1981); and United States v. Penn, 647 F.2d 876, 885 (9th Cir.) (in banc), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 903 , 101 S.Ct. 276 , 66 L.Ed.2d 134 (1980)); see also In re Grand Jury Proceedings of John Doe, 842 F.2d 244, 246-48 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 894 , 109 S.Ct. 233 , 102 L.Ed.2d 223 (1988); United States v. Davies, 768 F.2d 893, 897-900 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1008 , 106 S.Ct. 533 , 88 L.Ed.2d 464 (1985); Port v. …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Erato
Id. at 224 (citing United States v. Jones, 683 F.2d 817, 818-19 (4th Cir.1982); In re Grand Jury Proceedings (Starr), 647 F.2d 511 , 512-13 & n. 4 (5th Cir.Unit A May 1981); and United States v. Penn, 647 F.2d 876, 885 (9th Cir.) (in banc), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 903 , 101 S.Ct. 276 , 66 L.Ed.2d 134 (1980)); see also In re Grand Jury Proceedings of John Doe, 842 F.2d 244, 246-48 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 894 , 109 S.Ct. 233 , 102 L.Ed.2d 223 (1988); United States v. Davies, 768 F.2d 893, 897-900 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1008 , 106 S.Ct. 533 , 88 L.Ed.2d 464 (1985); Port v. …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lynn Ann Steirer v. Bethlehem Area School District
See, e.g., United States v. King, 840 F.2d 1276, 1280 (6th Cir.) (members of the House of Judah, a religious sect, violated 18 U.S.C. § 1584 where they "repeatedly used and threatened to use physical force to make the children [at their camp] perform labor and the children believed they had no viable alternative but to perform such labor"), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 894 , 109 S.Ct. 234 , 102 L.Ed.2d 224 (1988); United States v. Booker, 655 F.2d 562, 563, 566 (4th Cir.1981) (owners of migrant labor camp held farm workers in involuntary servitude in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1584 where they forbad…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Steirer v. Bethlehem Area School District
See, e.g., United States v. King, 840 F.2d 1276, 1280 (6th Cir.) (members of the House of Judah, a religious sect, violated 18 U.S.C. § 1584 where they “repeatedly used and threatened to use physical force to make the children [at their camp] perform labor and the children believed they had no viable alternative but to perform such labor”), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 894 , 109 S.Ct. 234 , 102 L.Ed.2d 224 (1988); United States v. Booker, 655 F.2d 562, 563, 566 (4th Cir.1981) (owners of migrant labor camp held farm workers in involuntary servitude in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1584 where they fo…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Patriarca
See United States v. Wogan, 938 F.2d 1446, 1448 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 441 , 116 L.Ed.2d 460 (1991) (inequality in sentencing outcome for similarly situated co-defendant, without more, does not justify a departure from a properly calculated Guidelines range); see also United States v. Levasseur, 846 F.2d 786, 793 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 894 , 109 S.Ct. 232 , 102 L.Ed.2d 222 (1988) (First Circuit expressly declines to decide whether doctrine of judicial estoppel can operate against the government in criminal cases); Patriot Cinemas Inc. v. General Cinema Corp…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Richard L. Sandstrom, Etc. v. Chemlawn Corporation
As we have explained, judicial estoppel “should be employed when a litigant is ‘playing fast and loose with the courts’ and when ‘intentional self-contradiction is *88 being used as a means of obtaining unfair advantage’.” Patriot Cinemas, 834 F.2d at 212 (quoting Scarano v. Central R.R., 203 F.2d 510, 513 (3d Cir.1953)); see also United States v. Levasseur, 846 F.2d 786, 792 (1st Cir.) (observing that the “primary concern of the doctrine of judicial estoppel is to protect the integrity of the judicial process”), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 894 , 109 S.Ct. 232 , 102 L.Ed.2d 222 (198…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Parez
v.
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
v.
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
No. 88-5057.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 11, 1988.
Published
Citer courts: D. New Hampshire (1)
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.