23 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1991–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Iowa courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Vennerberg Farms, Inc. v. IGF Insurance Co.green2 sentences2019A. Judicial Estoppel The doctrine of judicial estoppel provides, “[A] party who has, with knowledge of the facts, assumed a particular position in judicial proceedings is estopped to assume a position inconsistent therewith to the prejudice of the adverse party.” Kinseth v. Weil-McLain, 913 N.W.2d 55, 74 (Iowa 2018) (quoting Snouffer & Ford v. City of Tipton, 129 N.W. 345, 350 (Iowa 1911)). “[A] central tenet of the doctrine is ‘the successful assertion of the inconsistent position in a prior action.’” Id. (quoting Vennerberg Farms, Inc. v. IGF Ins., 405 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Iowa 1987)). 2019A. Judicial Estoppel The doctrine of judicial estoppel provides, “[A] party who has, with knowledge of the facts, assumed a particular position in judicial proceedings is estopped to assume a position inconsistent therewith to the prejudice of the adverse party.” Kinseth v. Weil-McLain, 913 N.W.2d 55, 74 (Iowa 2018) (quoting Snouffer & Ford v. City of Tipton, 129 N.W. 345, 350 (Iowa 1911)). “[A] central tenet of the doctrine is ‘the successful assertion of the inconsistent position in a prior action.’” Id. (quoting Vennerberg Farms, Inc. v. IGF Ins., 405 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Iowa 1987)). | 6 | 6 |
Winnebago Industries, Inc. v. Haverlygreen2 sentences2020See Winnebago Indus., Inc. v. Haverly, 727 N.W.2d 567 , 573–75 (Iowa 2006) (enumerating the rationale underlying the doctrine of judicial estoppel); United Fire & Cas. 2007See generally Winnebago Indus., Inc. v. Haverly, 727 N.W.2d 567 , 573–75 (Iowa 2006) (discussing doctrine of judicial estoppel). | 5 | 8 |
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Hedlundgreen2 sentences2023Judicial Estoppel Hormel next claims “the district court erred in finding that Hormel was judicially estopped from denying the care recommended by Dr. Eckhoff.”4 The doctrine of judicial estoppel “prohibits a party who has successfully and unequivocally asserted a position in one proceeding from asserting an inconsistent position in a subsequent proceeding.” Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Hedlund, 740 N.W.2d 192, 196 (Iowa 2007) (quoting Vennerberg Farms, Inc. v. IGF Ins. 2021The doctrine of judicial estoppel “prohibits a party who has successfully and unequivocally asserted a position in one proceeding from asserting an inconsistent 7 position in a subsequent proceeding.” Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Hedlund, 740 N.W.2d 192, 196 (Iowa 2007). | 4 | 5 |
Snouffer & Ford v. City of Tiptongreen2 sentences2019A. Judicial Estoppel The doctrine of judicial estoppel provides, “[A] party who has, with knowledge of the facts, assumed a particular position in judicial proceedings is estopped to assume a position inconsistent therewith to the prejudice of the adverse party.” Kinseth v. Weil-McLain, 913 N.W.2d 55, 74 (Iowa 2018) (quoting Snouffer & Ford v. City of Tipton, 129 N.W. 345, 350 (Iowa 1911)). “[A] central tenet of the doctrine is ‘the successful assertion of the inconsistent position in a prior action.’” Id. (quoting Vennerberg Farms, Inc. v. IGF Ins., 405 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Iowa 1987)). 2019A. Judicial Estoppel The doctrine of judicial estoppel provides, “[A] party who has, with knowledge of the facts, assumed a particular position in judicial proceedings is estopped to assume a position inconsistent therewith to the prejudice of the adverse party.” Kinseth v. Weil-McLain, 913 N.W.2d 55, 74 (Iowa 2018) (quoting Snouffer & Ford v. City of Tipton, 129 N.W. 345, 350 (Iowa 1911)). “[A] central tenet of the doctrine is ‘the successful assertion of the inconsistent position in a prior action.’” Id. (quoting Vennerberg Farms, Inc. v. IGF Ins., 405 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Iowa 1987)). | 2 | 2 |
Czajkowski v. City of Chicago, Ill.green2 sentences2006Id. (quoting Czajkowski v. City of Chicago, 810 F.Supp. 1428, 1434 (N.D.Ill.1992)) (other citation omitted). 2006Id. (quoting Czajkowski v. City of Chicago, 810 F. Supp. 1428, 1434 (N.D. | 2 | 2 |
Wilson v. Liberty Mutual Groupgreen2 sentences2007For example, we applied the doctrine of judicial estoppel in Wilson v. Liberty Mutual Group, 666 N.W.2d 163 (Iowa 2003). 2007For example, we applied the doctrine of judicial estoppel in Wilson v. Liberty Mutual Group, 666 N.W.2d 163 (Iowa 2000). | 1 | 3 |
Graber v. Iowa District Court for Washington Countygreen2 sentences1994Court, 410 N.W.2d 224, 227 (Iowa 1987). 1993Graber, 410 N.W.2d at 227 . | 1 | 3 |
Shari Kinseth and Ricky Kinseth, Coexecutors of the Estate of Larry Kinseth, and Shari Kinseth Individually v. Weil-McLain and State of Iowa ex rel. Civil Reparations Trust Fundgreen2 sentences2019A. Judicial Estoppel The doctrine of judicial estoppel provides, “[A] party who has, with knowledge of the facts, assumed a particular position in judicial proceedings is estopped to assume a position inconsistent therewith to the prejudice of the adverse party.” Kinseth v. Weil-McLain, 913 N.W.2d 55, 74 (Iowa 2018) (quoting Snouffer & Ford v. City of Tipton, 129 N.W. 345, 350 (Iowa 1911)). “[A] central tenet of the doctrine is ‘the successful assertion of the inconsistent position in a prior action.’” Id. (quoting Vennerberg Farms, Inc. v. IGF Ins., 405 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Iowa 1987)). 2019A. Judicial Estoppel The doctrine of judicial estoppel provides, “[A] party who has, with knowledge of the facts, assumed a particular position in judicial proceedings is estopped to assume a position inconsistent therewith to the prejudice of the adverse party.” Kinseth v. Weil-McLain, 913 N.W.2d 55, 74 (Iowa 2018) (quoting Snouffer & Ford v. City of Tipton, 129 N.W. 345, 350 (Iowa 1911)). “[A] central tenet of the doctrine is ‘the successful assertion of the inconsistent position in a prior action.’” Id. (quoting Vennerberg Farms, Inc. v. IGF Ins., 405 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Iowa 1987)). | 1 | 2 |
State of Iowa v. Patrick Michael Dudleygreen1 sentence2020See State v. Dudley, 856 N.W.2d 668, 675 (Iowa 2014) (reviewing evidentiary rulings other than hearsay rulings for an abuse of discretion). | 1 | 1 |
New Hampshire v. Mainegreen2 sentences2007As an “equitable doctrine invoked by a court at its discretion,”3 the appropriate standard 3New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 750 , 121 S. Ct. 1808, 1815 , 149 L. 2007As an “equitable doctrine invoked by a court at its discretion,”3 the appropriate standard 3New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 750 , 121 S. Ct. 1808, 1815 , 149 L. | 1 | 1 |
Samuel Stallings v. Hussmann Corporation Brian Groningergreen1 sentence2007See Middleton v. Caterpillar Indus., Inc., ___ So. 2d ___ (Ala. 2007) (Parker, J., concurring) (“A survey of opinions from other jurisdictions indicates that Alabama would join the mainstream of American jurisprudence in adopting an exceeding-discretion standard in matters involving judicial estoppel.”); Stallings v. Hussmann Corp., 447 F.3d 1041, 1046 (8th Cir. 2006) (“A majority of our sister circuits that have addressed the issue apply the abuse of discretion standard.”). 7 We first engaged in a comprehensive discussion of the doctrine of judicial estoppel in Vennerberg Farms, Inc. v. IGF I | 1 | 1 |
Duder v. Shanksgreen1 sentence2006See Duder v. Shanks, 689 N.W.2d 214, 220 (Iowa 2004) (" 'The doctrine of judicial estoppel "prohibits a person who successfully and unequivocally asserts a position in one proceeding from asserting an inconsistent position in another proceeding.” ’ ” (Citation omitted.)); see also State v. Duncan, 710 N.W.2d 34, 43-44 (Iowa 2006) (stating court can raise judicial estoppel on its own motion). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Duncangreen1 sentence2006See Duder v. Shanks, 689 N.W.2d 214, 220 (Iowa 2004) (" 'The doctrine of judicial estoppel "prohibits a person who successfully and unequivocally asserts a position in one proceeding from asserting an inconsistent position in another proceeding.” ’ ” (Citation omitted.)); see also State v. Duncan, 710 N.W.2d 34, 43-44 (Iowa 2006) (stating court can raise judicial estoppel on its own motion). | 1 | 1 |
Roach v. Crouchgreen1 sentence2004Relying on the doctrine of judicial estoppel, the plaintiff contends the defendant’s stipulation estops the defendant from taking the position that this suit was automatically dismissed or that it was not reinstated upon the court’s approval of the pretrial order. 2 “The doctrine of judicial estoppel ‘prohibits a party who successfully and unequivocally asserts a position in one proceeding from asserting an inconsistent position in a subsequent proceeding.’ ” *221 Roach v. Crouch, 524 N.W.2d 400, 403 (Iowa 1994) (citation omitted); accord Wilson v. Liberty Mut. | 1 | 1 |
Preston A. Parkinson v. The California Company, a Corporation and Stanolind Oil and Gas Company, a Corporationgreen1 sentence1991In reviewing the relative advantages and disadvantages of such a doctrine, the Konstan-tinidis court opted to reject it, noting that it had also been rejected in the Tenth Circuit decision of Parkinson v. California Co., 233 F.2d 432, 437-38 (10th Cir.1956). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 444348green2 sentences1991In Jackson Jordan, Inc. v. Plasser American Corp., 747 F.2d 1567, 1578-80 (Fed.Cir.1984), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opined that, although statements describing the judicial estoppel doctrine pay lip service to its application in the absence of privity between the party seeking to invoke it and the former litigation, some form of privity has in fact existed in most cases in which the doctrine has been successfully invoked. 1991Id. at 1579 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Frank Deguiseppe and Torry Palermo v. Village of Bellwood and Robert Frascone
green
2 sentences2006Id. (quoting Czajkowski v. City of Chicago, 810 F.Supp. 1428, 1434 (N.D.Ill.1992)) (other citation omitted). 2006Id. (quoting Czajkowski v. City of Chicago, 810 F. Supp. 1428, 1434 (N.D. | 2 | 2006–2006 |
Alternative System Concepts, Inc. v. Synopsys, Inc.
green
1 sentence2024In Alternative System Concepts, Inc. v. Synopsis, Inc., the First Circuit affirmed a judicial estoppel ruling where the district court’s review “paints a convincing picture of a litigant who took one position, used that position to its advantage at the motion to dismiss stage, and later attempted to switch horses midstream to revive a previously abandoned (and flatly inconsistent) claim.”5 374 F.3d at 34–35 (describing counsel’s shifting positions as “playing fast and loose,” “carrying out a game of bait and switch,” “artful dodging,” and “smoke and mirrors”). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
United Fire & Casualty Co. v. Shelly Funeral Home, Inc.
green
1 sentence2020Co. v. Shelly Funeral Home, Inc., 642 N.W.2d 648 , 654–55 (Iowa 2002) (outlining the rationale underlying the doctrine of collateral estoppel). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Beeman v. Manville Corp. Asbestos Disease Compensation Fund
green
1 sentence2018A number of issues have been properly raised for our review: (1) whether defense counsel's objections and motion for mistrial were timely, (2) whether plaintiff's counsel's statements during closing arguments warrant a new trial, (3) whether the doctrine of judicial estoppel bars Weil-McLain from appealing the compensatory damages award, (4) whether McDonnell & Miller valves were erroneously excluded from the allocation-of-fault special verdict form, (5) whether two bankrupt entities were erroneously included on the allocation-of-fault form, (6) whether evidence relating to Weil-McLain's OSHA | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Athanasios Konstantinidis and Vasiliki Konstantinidis, His Wife v. C. N. Chen, M. D
green
1 sentence1991It suggests that the principal point of departure is that the judicial estoppel doctrine “does not require proof of privity, reliance or prejudice.” Id. at 937 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.