Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Prystash v. Stategreen2 sentences2006Prystash v. State , 3 S.W.3d 522, 531 (Tex. Crim. 2004Prystash v. State, 3 S.W.3d 522, 531 (Tex.Crim.App.1999). | 4 | 4 |
New Hampshire v. Mainegreen2 sentences2011Under federal law, judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that protects the integrity of court proceedings by preventing "'a party from asserting a claim in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with a claim taken by that party in a previous proceeding.'" New Hampshire v. Maine , 532 U.S. 742, 749 (2001) (citation omitted). 2011Under federal law, judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that protects the integrity of court proceedings by preventing “‘a party from asserting a claim in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with a claim taken by that party in a previous proceeding.’” New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749 (2001) (citation omitted). | 3 | 5 |
Browning Manufacturing v. Mims (In Re Coastal Plains, Inc.)green2 sentences2016Id. –11– fast and loose with the courts to suit the exigencies of self-interest,” Allen, 813 F.3d at 572 (quoting In re Coastal Plains, Inc., 179 F.3d 197, 205 (5th Cir. 1999)), by prohibiting “a party from asserting a claim in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with a claim taken by that party in a previous proceeding.” Reed v. City of Arlington, 650 F.3d 571 , 573–74 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (quoting 18 James Wm. 2012See New Hampshire v. Maine, 582 U.S. 742 , 749, 121 S.Ct. 1808, 1814 , 149 L.Ed.2d 968 (2001); In re Coastal Plains, Inc., 179 F.3d 197, 205 (5th Cir.1999). | 2 | 2 |
Ginsberg v. Fifth Court of Appealsgreen1 sentence2017See Ramirez, 887 S.W.2d at 840 ; Ginsberg v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 686 S.W.2d 105, 108 (Tex. 1985) (holding that plaintiff could not assert privilege for medical records that were relevant to and possibly validated the statute of limitation defenses that had been asserted; the trial court found the records to be relevant after an in camera review). | 1 | 1 |
R.K. v. Ramirezgreen1 sentence2017See Ramirez, 887 S.W.2d at 840 ; Ginsberg v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 686 S.W.2d 105, 108 (Tex. 1985) (holding that plaintiff could not assert privilege for medical records that were relevant to and possibly validated the statute of limitation defenses that had been asserted; the trial court found the records to be relevant after an in camera review). | 1 | 1 |
Perez, Ex Parte Alberto Girongreen1 sentence2016See Ex parte Perez, 398 S.W.3d at 210 & n.3. | 1 | 1 |
Green v. Parrackgreen1 sentence2013Green v. Parrack, 974 S.W.2d 200, 203 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, no pet.). | 1 | 1 |
Union Pacific Railroad v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2012Co. v. Williams, 85 S.W.3d 162, 169 (Tex.2002). 1 *767 Judicial estoppel is a common law doctrine utilized to prevent a party from asserting a claim in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with position taken by that party in a previous proceeding. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pegram v. Herdrich
green
2 sentences2010When applicable, “[t]he doctrine of judicial estoppel prevents a party from asserting a claim in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with a claim taken by that party in a previous proceeding.” Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U.S. 211 , 227 n. *11 8, 120 S.Ct. 2148 , 147 L.Ed.2d 164 (2000). 9 It “is an equitable doctrine invoked by a court at its discretion.” New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 750 , 121 S.Ct. 1808 . 2010When applicable, “[t]he doctrine of judicial estoppel prevents a party from asserting a claim in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with a claim taken by that party in a previous proceeding.” Pegram v. Herdrich , 530 U.S. 211 , 227 n.8 (2000) . [9] It “is an equitable doctrine invoked by a court at its discretion.” New Hampshire , 532 U.S. at 750 . | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Willie Love v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
green
1 sentence2016Id. –11– fast and loose with the courts to suit the exigencies of self-interest,” Allen, 813 F.3d at 572 (quoting In re Coastal Plains, Inc., 179 F.3d 197, 205 (5th Cir. 1999)), by prohibiting “a party from asserting a claim in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with a claim taken by that party in a previous proceeding.” Reed v. City of Arlington, 650 F.3d 571 , 573–74 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (quoting 18 James Wm. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Reed v. City of Arlington
green
1 sentence2016Id. –11– fast and loose with the courts to suit the exigencies of self-interest,” Allen, 813 F.3d at 572 (quoting In re Coastal Plains, Inc., 179 F.3d 197, 205 (5th Cir. 1999)), by prohibiting “a party from asserting a claim in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with a claim taken by that party in a previous proceeding.” Reed v. City of Arlington, 650 F.3d 571 , 573–74 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (quoting 18 James Wm. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Helen Allen v. C & H Distributors, L.L.C.
green
1 sentence2016Id. –11– fast and loose with the courts to suit the exigencies of self-interest,” Allen, 813 F.3d at 572 (quoting In re Coastal Plains, Inc., 179 F.3d 197, 205 (5th Cir. 1999)), by prohibiting “a party from asserting a claim in a legal proceeding that is inconsistent with a claim taken by that party in a previous proceeding.” Reed v. City of Arlington, 650 F.3d 571 , 573–74 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (quoting 18 James Wm. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
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.