green
Positive treatment
Circuit Split
Quoted verbatim 2×
8.5 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1999 ·
…judicial estoppel is a doctrine intended to prevent the perversion of the judicial process
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1992 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1992
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
First National Insurance v. Federal Deposit Insurance
Bates v. Cook, 615 F.Supp. 662, 672-73 (M.D.Fla.1984): United States v. Siegel, 472 F.Supp. 440 , 442 n. 4 (N.D.Ill.1979); United States v. Certain Land and Interests in Property, 225 F.Supp. 338, 341 (M.D.Tenn.1964); Cf. Helfand v. Gerson, 105 F.3d 530, 535 (9th Cir.1997) (explaining division among courts over whether judicial estoppel applies only to inconsistent factual positions, or inconsistent legal positions as well); but see In re Cassidy, 892 F.2d 637, 642-42 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 812 , 111 S.Ct. 48 , 112 L.Ed.2d 24 (1990) (applying judicial estoppel to legal positions as…
discussed
Cited "but see"
First Nat. Ins. Co. v. FDIC
Bates v. Cook, 615 F.Supp. 662, 672-73 (M.D.Fla.1984): United States v. Siegel, 472 F.Supp. 440 , 442 n. 4 (N.D.Ill. 1979); United States v. Certain Land and Interests in Property, 225 F.Supp. 338, 341 (M.D.Tenn.1964); Cf. Helfand v. Gerson, 105 F.3d 530, 535 (9th Cir.1997) (explaining division among courts over whether judicial estoppel applies only to inconsistent factual positions, or inconsistent legal positions as well); but see In re Cassidy, 892 F.2d 637, 642-42 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 812 , 111 S.Ct. 48 , 112 L.Ed.2d 24 (1990) (applying judicial estoppel to legal positions a…
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Browning Mfg v. Salisbury
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
judicial estoppel is a doctrine intended to prevent the perversion of the judicial process
cited
Cited "see"
In re Adams
See Matter of Cassidy, 892 F.2d 637 , 641 & n. 2 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 812 , 111 S.Ct. 48 , 112 L.Ed.2d 24 (1990). (internal footnotes omitted).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Supertrail Manufacturing Co.
See Matter of Cassidy, 892 F.2d 637 , 641 & n. 2 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 812 , 111 S.Ct. 48 , 112 L.Ed.2d 24 (1990).[FN3] 179 F.3d at 205 .
cited
Cited "see"
Luedtke v. Commerce Bank N.A. (In Re Luedtke)
See Matter of Cassidy, 892 F.2d 637, 641-42 (7th Cir.1990), cert. denied sub nom Cassidy v. C.I.R., 498 U.S. 812 , 111 S.Ct. 48 , 112 L.Ed.2d 24 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Milton H. Greene Archives, Inc. v. CMG Worldwide, Inc.
See In re *1198 Coastal Plains, Inc., 179 F.3d 197, 205 (5th Cir.1999) ("Because the doctrine is intended to protect the judicial system, rather than the litigants, detrimental reliance by the opponent of the party against whom the doctrine is applied is not necessary," citing Matter of Cassidy, 892 F.2d 637 , 641 & n. 2 (7th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 812 , 111 S.Ct. 48 , 112 L.Ed.2d 24 (1990)); In re Chambers Dev.
cited
Cited "see"
Pryor v. Deberry (In Re Pryor)
See Matter of Cassidy, 892 F.2d 637 , 641 & n. 2 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 812 , 111 S.Ct. 48 , 112 L.Ed.2d 24 (1990).[FN3] 179 F.3d at p. 205 .
cited
Cited "see"
Rumore v. Wamstad (In Re Waddell)
See Matter of Cassidy, 892 F.2d 637 , 641 & n. 2 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 812 , 111 S.Ct. 48 , 112 L.Ed.2d 24 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Browning Manufacturing v. Mims (In Re Coastal Plains, Inc.)
See Matter of Cassidy, 892 F.2d 637 , 641 & n. 2 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 812 , 111 S.Ct. 48 , 112 L.Ed.2d 24 (1990). 3 *206 “The policies underlying the doctrine include preventing internal inconsistency, precluding litigants from playing fast and loose with the courts, and prohibiting parties from deliberately changing positions according to the exigencies of the moment.” United States v. McCaskey, 9 F.3d 368, 378 (5th Cir.1993).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Grand Jury Subpoena
See United States v. Kersting, 891 F.2d 1407, 1410-11 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 812 , 111 S.Ct. 49 , 112 L.Ed.2d 25 (1990). 2 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Lithuanian Commerce Corp. v. Sara Lee Hosiery
See In re Cassidy, 892 F.2d 637, 641 (7th Cir.) (dismissing an entire claim sua sponte based on judicial estoppel because that doctrine "is intended to protect the courts rather than the litigants, so it follows that a court, even an appellate court, may raise the estoppel on its own motion in an appropriate case”) (footnote omitted), cert, denied, 498 U.S. 812 , 111 S.Ct. 48 , 112 L.Ed.2d 24 (1990); Salahuddin v. Jones, 992 F.2d 447, 449 (2d Cir.) (affirming sua sponte dismissal of entire claim based on res judicata grounds as "not only appropriate but virtually mandatory in this case, whet…
cited
Cited "see"
TriStrata Technology, Inc. v. Neoteric Cosmetics, Inc.
See Patterson v. F.B.I., 893 F.2d 595, 604 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 812 , 111 S.Ct. 48 , 112 L.Ed.2d 24 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Thomas Trulis Eamon J. McClory Erv Grosch Thomas Swarthout Al Simon Tom Ewing Michael Barrack v. J. Porter Barton Jon T. Brown Phillip R. Jacoby, Jr., and Myron Sukut Carl Berg Clyde Berg Berg & Berg Developers Baccarat Electronics, Inc., Thomas Trulis Eamon J. McClory Erv Grosch Thomas Swarthout Al Simon Tom Ewing Michael Barrack, Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellees v. J. Porter Barton Myron Sukut Jon T. Brown Phillip R. Jacoby, Jr., and Carl Berg Clyde Berg Berg & Berg Developers Baccarat Electronics, Inc., Defendants-Cross-Appellants. Thomas Trulis Eamon J. McClory Erv Grosch Thomas Swarthout Al Simon Tom Ewing Michael Barrack, Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellees, Daniel J. Callahan Jeffrey S. Benice v. J. Porter Barton, and Carl Berg Clyde Berg Berg & Berg Developers Baccarat Electronics, Inc., Defendants-Cross-Appellants
See United States v. Kersting (Two Cases), 891 F.2d 1407, 1413 (9th Cir.1989) (finding that motion for discovery brought after notice of appeal directly related to good faith, an issue on appeal, and therefore was beyond the district court's jurisdiction), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 812 , 111 S.Ct. 49 , 112 L.Ed.2d 25 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Helfand v. Gerson
See In re Cassidy, 892 F.2d 637, 641-42 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 812 , 111 S.Ct. 48 , 112 L.Ed.2d 24 (1990); Hardwick v. Cuomo, 891 F.2d 1097 , 1105 n. 14 (3d Cir.1989); Patriot Cinemas, Inc. v. General Cinema Corp., 834 F.2d 208, 214-15 (1st Cir.1987); Allen v. Zurich Ins.
discussed
Cited "see"
97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 633, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1015 Ruth C. Helfand Mark Seidenberg, as Attorney-In-Fact for Ruth C. Helfand, Real Party in Interest v. Mervyn Gerson an Individual Gerson, Grekin and Wynhoff, a Professional Law Corporation
See In re Cassidy, 892 F.2d 637, 641-42 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 812 , 111 S.Ct. 48 , 112 L.Ed.2d 24 (1990); Hardwick v. Cuomo, 891 F.2d 1097 , 1105 n. 14 (3d Cir.1989); Patriot Cinemas, Inc. v. General Cinema Corp., 834 F.2d 208, 214-15 (1st Cir.1987); Allen v. Zurich Ins.
discussed
Cited "see"
Trulis v. Barton
See United States v. Kersting (Two Cases), 891 F.2d 1407, 1413 (9th Cir.1989) (finding that motion for discovery brought after notice of appeal directly related to good faith, an issue on appeal, and therefore was beyond the district court’s jurisdiction), cer t. denied, 498 U.S. 812 , 111 S.Ct. 49 , 112 L.Ed.2d 25 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bankr. L. Rep. P 76,674, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7528, 95 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,915 Thomas Trulis Eamon J. McClory Erv Grosch Thomas Swarthout Al Simon Tom Ewing Michael Barrack v. J. Porter Barton Jon T. Brown Phillip R. Jacoby, Jr., and Myron Sukut Carl Berg Clyde Berg Berg & Berg Developers Baccarat Electronics, Inc., Thomas Trulis Eamon J. McClory Erv Grosch Thomas Swarthout Al Simon Tom Ewing Michael Barrack, Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellees v. J. Porter Barton Myron Sukut Jon T. Brown Phillip R. Jacoby, Jr., and Carl Berg Clyde Berg Berg & Berg Developers Baccarat Electronics, Inc., Defendants-Cross-Appellants. Thomas Trulis Eamon J. McClory Erv Grosch Thomas Swarthout Al Simon Tom Ewing Michael Barrack, Plaintiffs-Cross-Appellees, Daniel J. Callahan, Cross-Appellee v. J. Porter Barton, and Carl Berg Clyde Berg Berg & Berg Developers Baccarat Electronics, Inc., Defendants-Cross-Appellants
See United States v. Kersting (Two Cases), 891 F.2d 1407, 1413 (9th Cir.1989) (finding that motion for discovery brought after notice of appeal directly related to good faith, an issue on appeal, and therefore was beyond the district court's jurisdiction), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 812 , 111 S.Ct. 49 , 112 L.Ed.2d 25 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Trulis v. Barton
See United States v. Kersting (Two Cases), 891 F.2d 1407, 1413 (9th Cir.1989) (finding that motion for discovery brought after notice of appeal directly related to good faith, an issue on appeal, and therefore was beyond the district court s jurisdiction), cer t. denied, 498 U.S. 812 , 111 S.Ct. 49 , 112.
cited
Cited "see"
UNR Industries, Inc. v. Bloomington Factory Workers
See In the Matter of Cassidy, 892 F.2d 637, 642 (7th Cir.) (application of judicial estoppel within a court’s sound discretion), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 812 , 111 S.Ct. 48 , 112 L.Ed.2d 24 (1990).
cited
Cited "see"
Manna v. United States Department of Justice
See Patterson v. F.B.I., 893 F.2d 595 , 599 n. 7 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 812 , 111 S.Ct. 48 , 112 L.Ed.2d 24 (1990); Vaughn, 484 F.2d at 827 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Gillotti
See, Patterson v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 893 F.2d 595, 603 (3d Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 812 , 111 S.Ct. 48 , 112 L.Ed.2d 24 (1990) (agencies are required to demonstrate that any and all records maintained on an individual’s exercise of First Amendment rights are relevant to an authorized law enforcement activity of the agency, and that there exists a sufficient basis for the maintenance of such records); MacPherson v. Internal Revenue Service, 803 F.2d 479, 484 (9th Cir.1986) (court should make a case-by-case analysis as to whether an agency’s actions were pertinent to a…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Normandy Apartments, Ltd. v. United States
See also In re Cassidy, 892 F.2d 637, 641 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, sub nom., Cassidy v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 498 U.S. 812 , 111 S.Ct. 48 , 112 L.Ed.2d 24 (1990) ("Judicial estoppel is a doctrine intended to prevent the perversion of the judicial process.”); Konstantinidis v. Chen, 626 F.2d 933, 938 (D.C.Cir.1980) (rule is intended to prevent "improper use of judicial machinery"); Scarano v. Centr.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Global Relief Foundation, Inc. v. O'NEILL
See also Patterson v. Federal Bureau of Investigation, 893 F.2d 595, 599-600 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 812 , 111 S.Ct. 48 , 112 L.Ed.2d 24 (1990); United States v. Ott, 827 F.2d 473, 475 (9th Cir.1987); United States v. Belfield, 692 F.2d 141, 147 (D.C.Cir.1982); and United States v. Nicholson, 955 F.Supp. 588, 592 (E.D.Va.1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Commonwealth Edison Co. v. United States
See also Transohio Savings Bank, 967 F.2d at 618 ("[0]ne who wishes to obtain a contractual right against the sovereign that is immune from the effect of future changes in law must make sure that the contract confers such a right in unmistakable terms.”)(quoting Western Fuels-Utah, Inc., v. Lujan, 895 F.2d 780, 789 (D.C.Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 811 , 111 S.Ct. 47 , 112 L.Ed.2d 24 (1990), and cert. denied, 498 U.S. 812 , 111 S.Ct. 48 , 112 L.Ed.2d 24 (1990)); Statesman Sav.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Fieldcrest Cannon, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance
See also Matter of Cassidy, 892 F.2d 637 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 812 , 112 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
American Civil Liberties Union and Larry Schack v. The Florida Bar and the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission
Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2264, at 747 (1970); see also Matter of Cassidy, 892 F.2d 637 , 640 n. 1 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 812 , 111 S.Ct. 48 , 112 L.Ed.2d 24 (1990).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Patterson
v.
Federal Bureau of Investigation
v.
Federal Bureau of Investigation
No. 89-1731.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 1, 1990.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Fifth Circuit (1)
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.