judicial estoppel doctrine in Indiana

2020Hosp. v. Upham, 884 N.E.2d 275, 280 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied.

2017Hosp. v. Upham, 884 N.E.2d 275, 280 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (internal quotation omitted).

2014See Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621, 631 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). 5 position in a legal proceeding inconsistent with one previously asserted.” Id. (citing Brightman v. State, 758 N.E.2d 41, 48 (Ind. 2001)).

2012Specifically, the panel based its decision on the doctrine of judicial estoppel, which “prevents a party from assuming a position in a legal proceeding inconsistent with one previously asserted.” Id. (citing Brightman v. State, 758 N.E.2d 41, 48 (Ind. 2001)).

2012Whether the State’s Argument is Barred by the Doctrine of Judicial Estoppel Grund argues that the doctrine of judicial estoppel should bar the State from being 5 able to argue in this post-conviction proceeding that its meeting with jurors from the first trial was proper when it opposed her motion to call a juror from the second trial as a witness. “[J]udicial estoppel prevents a party from asserting a position in a legal proceeding inconsistent with one previously asserted.” Wabash Grain, Inc. v. Smith, 700 N.E.2d 234, 237 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), trans. denied.

2012The Moffatts claim that the Trust’s appeal is barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel. “[J]udicial estoppel prevents a party from asserting a position in a legal proceeding inconsistent with one previously asserted.” Wabash Grain, Inc. v. Smith, 700 N.E.2d 234, 237 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).

2016Jean Fin., Inc., 233 B.R. 46, 52 (S.D.N.Y.1999)), trans. denied.

2011It is a basic tenet of federal bankruptcy law that “all assets of the debtor, including all pre-petition causes of action belonging to the debtor, are assets of the bankruptcy estate that must be scheduled for the benefit of creditors.” Kunica, 233 B.R. at 52 .

2012Judicial estoppel is not intended to eliminate all inconsistencies; rather, it is designed to prevent litigants from playing “fast and loose” with the courts. [Ryan Operations G.P. v. Santiam-Midwest Lumber Co., 81 F.3d 355, 358 (3rd Cir. 1996).] The primary purpose of judicial estoppel is not to protect litigants but to protect the integrity of the judiciary.

2005Any claim of the inadequacy of such a disclosure should be addressed under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, which better serves to protect the integrity of the courts in such cireumstances and protects a debtor-plaintiff from a party seeking to use "technicalities" to "derail potentially meritorious claims." See Ryan, 81 F.3d at 365 .

2017“Under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, a party may not assert a position in a legal proceeding inconsistent with one previously asserted.” Hay v. Baumgartner, 903 N.E.2d 1044, 1049 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied.

2016Judicial Estoppel [17] Anonymous Physician # 3 and Anonymous Nurse Practitioner also alleged in their motion for preliminary determination that the proposed complaint should be dismissed pursuant to the doctrine of judicial estoppel. 7 [18] It is a basic tenet of bankruptcy law that “all assets of the debt- or, including all pre-petition causes of action belonging to the debtor, are assets of the bankruptcy estate that must be scheduled for the benefit of creditors.” Price v. Kuchaes, 950 N.E.2d 1218, 1227 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (quoting Kunica v. St.

2014See Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621, 631 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). 5 position in a legal proceeding inconsistent with one previously asserted.” Id. (citing Brightman v. State, 758 N.E.2d 41, 48 (Ind. 2001)).

2014See Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621, 631 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). 5 position in a legal proceeding inconsistent with one previously asserted.” Id. (citing Brightman v. State, 758 N.E.2d 41, 48 (Ind. 2001)).

2012“Judicial estoppel prevents a party from asserting a position in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with one previously asserted, and it ‘precludes a party from repudiating assertions in the party’s own pleadings.’” Gatlin Plumbing& Heating, Inc. v. Estate of Yeager, 921 N.E.2d 18, 24 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “[A] party may not generally 6 assume successive positions in the course of the same litigation with respect to the same fact or set of facts which are inconsistent and mutually contradictory.” Lumbard v. Farmers State Bank, 812 N.E.2d 196, 201 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (citing Gregory and A

2012“Judicial estoppel prevents a party from asserting a position in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with one previously asserted, and it ‘precludes a party from repudiating assertions in the party’s own pleadings.’” Gatlin Plumbing& Heating, Inc. v. Estate of Yeager, 921 N.E.2d 18, 24 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “[A] party may not generally 6 assume successive positions in the course of the same litigation with respect to the same fact or set of facts which are inconsistent and mutually contradictory.” Lumbard v. Farmers State Bank, 812 N.E.2d 196, 201 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (citing Gregory and A

2012“Judicial estoppel prevents a party from asserting a position in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with one previously asserted, and it ‘precludes a party from repudiating assertions in the party’s own pleadings.’” Gatlin Plumbing& Heating, Inc. v. Estate of Yeager, 921 N.E.2d 18, 24 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “[A] party may not generally 6 assume successive positions in the course of the same litigation with respect to the same fact or set of facts which are inconsistent and mutually contradictory.” Lumbard v. Farmers State Bank, 812 N.E.2d 196, 201 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (citing Gregory and A

2011Servs., 260 F.3d 909, 912-13 (8th Cir.2001); Hammes, 659 N.E.2d at 1025-26 (stating debtor-plaintiffs’ negligence actions violated the above bankruptcy principles; personal injury causes of action existed when bankruptcies were filed yet were not scheduled as assets, and plaintiffs filed their actions after bankruptcy court discharged their debts); cf. Cannon-Stokes v. Potter, 453 F.3d 446, 448 (7th Cir.2006) (stating under the doctrine of judicial estoppel that “a debtor in bankruptcy who denies owning an asset, including a chose in action or other legal claim, cannot realize on that conceale

2011See Robson, 833 N.E.2d at 466 .

2011Servs., 260 F.3d 909, 912-13 (8th Cir.2001); Hammes, 659 N.E.2d at 1025-26 (stating debtor-plaintiffs’ negligence actions violated the above bankruptcy principles; personal injury causes of action existed when bankruptcies were filed yet were not scheduled as assets, and plaintiffs filed their actions after bankruptcy court discharged their debts); cf. Cannon-Stokes v. Potter, 453 F.3d 446, 448 (7th Cir.2006) (stating under the doctrine of judicial estoppel that “a debtor in bankruptcy who denies owning an asset, including a chose in action or other legal claim, cannot realize on that conceale

2011Servs., 260 F.3d 909, 912-13 (8th Cir.2001); Hammes, 659 N.E.2d at 1025-26 (stating debtor-plaintiffs’ negligence actions violated the above bankruptcy principles; personal injury causes of action existed when bankruptcies were filed yet were not scheduled as assets, and plaintiffs filed their actions after bankruptcy court discharged their debts); cf. Cannon-Stokes v. Potter, 453 F.3d 446, 448 (7th Cir.2006) (stating under the doctrine of judicial estoppel that “a debtor in bankruptcy who denies owning an asset, including a chose in action or other legal claim, cannot realize on that conceale

2001Ohning v. Driskill, 739 N.E.2d 161, 163 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. denied.

1997See Nation v. State, 445 N.E.2d 565, 570 (Ind.1983). [2] Two Indiana cases, American Family Mut.

1997See Nation v. State, 445 N.E.2d 565, 570 (Ind.1983). .

1991See eg. Oneida Motor Freight, Inc. v. United Jersey Bank (3d Cir., 1988), 848 F.2d 414 , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 967 , 109 S.Ot. 495, 102 L Ed.2d 532 (debtor who fails to include claim in disclosure statements precluded from litigating claim subsequent to bankruptcy by doctrine of judicial estoppel); Monroe County Oil Co. v. Amoco Oil Co. (S.D.Ind., 1987), 75 B.R. 158 (debtor equitably estopped by failure to disclose in bank-ruptey petition, plans of reorganization, or disclosure statements); In Re Galerie Des Monnaies of Geneva, Ltd.

1991See eg. Oneida Motor Freight, Inc. v. United Jersey Bank (3d Cir., 1988), 848 F.2d 414 , cert. denied, 488 U.S. 967 , 109 S.Ot. 495, 102 L Ed.2d 532 (debtor who fails to include claim in disclosure statements precluded from litigating claim subsequent to bankruptcy by doctrine of judicial estoppel); Monroe County Oil Co. v. Amoco Oil Co. (S.D.Ind., 1987), 75 B.R. 158 (debtor equitably estopped by failure to disclose in bank-ruptey petition, plans of reorganization, or disclosure statements); In Re Galerie Des Monnaies of Geneva, Ltd.