judicial estoppel doctrine in Rhode Island

2026Judicial Estoppel The doctrine of judicial estoppel is “driven by the important motive of promoting truthfulness and fair dealing in court proceedings.” D & H Therapy Associates v. Murray, 821 A.2d 691, 693 (R.I. 2003).

2026Judicial Estoppel The doctrine of judicial estoppel is “driven by the important motive of promoting truthfulness and fair dealing in court proceedings.” D & H Therapy Associates v. Murray, 821 A.2d 691, 693 (R.I. 2003).

2023In New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001), the United States Supreme Court explained the parameters of the doctrine of judicial estoppel: “[W]here a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume a contrary position, especially if it be to the prejudice of the party who has acquiesced in the position formerly taken by him. * * * This rule, known as judicial estoppel, generally prevents a party from prevailing in one phase of a case on an argument and then relying on

2023“Of utmost importance in determining whether to apply the doctrine of judicial estoppel is whether the ‘party seeking to assert an inconsistent position would derive an unfair advantage * * * if not estopped.’” Id. (quoting New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 751 ).

2026“Ordinarily, the application of estoppel is an extraordinary form of relief, that ‘will not be applied unless the equities clearly are balanced in favor of the party seeking relief.’” Gaumond v. - 27 - Trinity Repertory Company, 909 A.2d 512, 519 (R.I. 2006) (brackets omitted) (quoting Southex Exhibitions, Inc. v. Rhode Island Builders Association, Inc., 279 F.3d 94, 104 (1st Cir. 2002)). “‘[J]udicial estoppel focuses on the relationship between the litigant and the judicial system as a whole’ rather than solely on the ‘relationship between the parties.’” Id. (quoting D & H Therapy Associates,

2026“Ordinarily, the application of estoppel is an extraordinary form of relief, that ‘will not be applied unless the equities clearly are balanced in favor of the party seeking relief.’” Gaumond v. - 27 - Trinity Repertory Company, 909 A.2d 512, 519 (R.I. 2006) (brackets omitted) (quoting Southex Exhibitions, Inc. v. Rhode Island Builders Association, Inc., 279 F.3d 94, 104 (1st Cir. 2002)). “‘[J]udicial estoppel focuses on the relationship between the litigant and the judicial system as a whole’ rather than solely on the ‘relationship between the parties.’” Id. (quoting D & H Therapy Associates,

2009See D H Therapy Associates , 821 A.2d at 693 ("By invoking judicial estoppel in this case, we recognize the rich history of this doctrine, driven by the important motive of promoting truthfulness and fair dealing in court proceedings."); see also Gray v. Fitzhugh , 576 P.2d 88 , 91 (Wyo. 1978) ("The doctrine of judicial estoppel * * * prohibits litigants from playing fast and loose with the courts; a party will not be allowed to maintain inconsistent positions in separate judicial proceedings."); Yarber v. Pennell , 443 S.W.2d 382 , 385 (Tex.Civ.App. 1969) (Judicial estoppel prevents a party f

2003See, e.g., Finley v. Kesling, 105 Ill.App.3d 1 , 60 Ill.Dec. 874 , 433 N.E.2d 1112, 1118-19 (1982) (judicial estoppel prevents a witness from contradicting, while testifying under oath, his testimony in a proceeding before a court of another state); Behrens v. Baldenecker, 76 S.D. 327 , 77 N.W.2d 917, 919 (1956) (judicial estoppel prevents a party from “playing fast and loose with the courts”); Yarber v. Pennell, 443 S.W.2d 382, 385 (Tex.Civ.App.1969) (judicial estoppel prevents a party from asserting “a contention which would be diametrically opposed to his previously asserted position”); Gra

2009See D H Therapy Associates , 821 A.2d at 693 ("By invoking judicial estoppel in this case, we recognize the rich history of this doctrine, driven by the important motive of promoting truthfulness and fair dealing in court proceedings."); see also Gray v. Fitzhugh , 576 P.2d 88 , 91 (Wyo. 1978) ("The doctrine of judicial estoppel * * * prohibits litigants from playing fast and loose with the courts; a party will not be allowed to maintain inconsistent positions in separate judicial proceedings."); Yarber v. Pennell , 443 S.W.2d 382 , 385 (Tex.Civ.App. 1969) (Judicial estoppel prevents a party f

2003See, e.g., Finley v. Kesling, 105 Ill.App.3d 1 , 60 Ill.Dec. 874 , 433 N.E.2d 1112, 1118-19 (1982) (judicial estoppel prevents a witness from contradicting, while testifying under oath, his testimony in a proceeding before a court of another state); Behrens v. Baldenecker, 76 S.D. 327 , 77 N.W.2d 917, 919 (1956) (judicial estoppel prevents a party from “playing fast and loose with the courts”); Yarber v. Pennell, 443 S.W.2d 382, 385 (Tex.Civ.App.1969) (judicial estoppel prevents a party from asserting “a contention which would be diametrically opposed to his previously asserted position”); Gra

2026“Ordinarily, the application of estoppel is an extraordinary form of relief, that ‘will not be applied unless the equities clearly are balanced in favor of the party seeking relief.’” Gaumond v. - 27 - Trinity Repertory Company, 909 A.2d 512, 519 (R.I. 2006) (brackets omitted) (quoting Southex Exhibitions, Inc. v. Rhode Island Builders Association, Inc., 279 F.3d 94, 104 (1st Cir. 2002)). “‘[J]udicial estoppel focuses on the relationship between the litigant and the judicial system as a whole’ rather than solely on the ‘relationship between the parties.’” Id. (quoting D & H Therapy Associates,

2026“Ordinarily, the application of estoppel is an extraordinary form of relief, that ‘will not be applied unless the equities clearly are balanced in favor of the party seeking relief.’” Gaumond v. - 27 - Trinity Repertory Company, 909 A.2d 512, 519 (R.I. 2006) (brackets omitted) (quoting Southex Exhibitions, Inc. v. Rhode Island Builders Association, Inc., 279 F.3d 94, 104 (1st Cir. 2002)). “‘[J]udicial estoppel focuses on the relationship between the litigant and the judicial system as a whole’ rather than solely on the ‘relationship between the parties.’” Id. (quoting D & H Therapy Associates,

2023“Ordinarily, the application of estoppel is an extraordinary form of relief, that will not be applied unless the equities clearly [are] balanced in favor of the part[y] seeking relief.” Shorrock v. Scott, 944 A.2d 861, 864 (R.I. 2008) (quoting Gaumond, 909 A.2d at 519 ).

2011Dunellen LLC , 557 F. Supp. 2d at 269 (citing GE HFS Holdings , 520 F. Supp. 2d at 223 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

2006See also University of Pennsylvania v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 493 U.S. 182, 189 , 110 S.Ct. 577 , 107 L.Ed.2d 571 (1990) (declaring that "[w]e are especially reluctant to recognize a privilege in an area where it appears that Congress has considered the relevant competing concerns but has not provided the privilege itself”). 18 .For more extensive discussion of the doctrine of judicial estoppel, see New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749-56 , 121 S.Ct. 1808 , 149 L.Ed.2d 968 (2001).

2006See also University of Pennsylvania v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 493 U.S. 182, 189 , 110 S.Ct. 577 , 107 L.Ed.2d 571 (1990) (declaring that "[w]e are especially reluctant to recognize a privilege in an area where it appears that Congress has considered the relevant competing concerns but has not provided the privilege itself”). 18 .For more extensive discussion of the doctrine of judicial estoppel, see New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749-56 , 121 S.Ct. 1808 , 149 L.Ed.2d 968 (2001).

2006Standard of Review This Court limits its review on certiorari to “examining the record to determine if an error of law has been committed.” City of Providence v. S & J 351, Inc., 693 A.2d 665, 667 (R.I.1997) (quoting Matter of Falstaff Brewing Corp. Re: Narragansett Brewery Fire, 637 A.2d 1047, 1049 (R.I.1994)).

2006We previously have held that in the context of a criminal case, “a defendant *520 may not complain of testimony on appeal when such testimony was brought out by defendant himself * * State v. Harris, 871 A.2d 341, 345-46 (R.I.2005).

2006Standard of Review This Court limits its review on certiorari to “examining the record to determine if an error of law has been committed.” City of Providence v. S & J 351, Inc., 693 A.2d 665, 667 (R.I.1997) (quoting Matter of Falstaff Brewing Corp. Re: Narragansett Brewery Fire, 637 A.2d 1047, 1049 (R.I.1994)).

2005See, e.g., Huckin v. Connor, 928 S.W.2d 180, 183 (Tex.App.1996) (holding that, since an affidavit "is a sworn document,” the affiant’s statements in an affidavit that he had submitted in an earlier case could serve as a basis for barring the affiant’s later inconsistent statements pursuant to the doctrine of judicial estoppel); see also In re Testa, 489 A.2d 331, 335 (R.I.1985) (“Because the affidavit was sworn to before a notaiy public, the statements asserted therein were regarded as truthful and the document is therefore available as evidence of the facts stated.”). 5 .

2005See, e.g., Huckin v. Connor, 928 S.W.2d 180, 183 (Tex.App.1996) (holding that, since an affidavit "is a sworn document,” the affiant’s statements in an affidavit that he had submitted in an earlier case could serve as a basis for barring the affiant’s later inconsistent statements pursuant to the doctrine of judicial estoppel); see also In re Testa, 489 A.2d 331, 335 (R.I.1985) (“Because the affidavit was sworn to before a notaiy public, the statements asserted therein were regarded as truthful and the document is therefore available as evidence of the facts stated.”). 5 .

2003See, e.g., Finley v. Kesling, 105 Ill.App.3d 1 , 60 Ill.Dec. 874 , 433 N.E.2d 1112, 1118-19 (1982) (judicial estoppel prevents a witness from contradicting, while testifying under oath, his testimony in a proceeding before a court of another state); Behrens v. Baldenecker, 76 S.D. 327 , 77 N.W.2d 917, 919 (1956) (judicial estoppel prevents a party from “playing fast and loose with the courts”); Yarber v. Pennell, 443 S.W.2d 382, 385 (Tex.Civ.App.1969) (judicial estoppel prevents a party from asserting “a contention which would be diametrically opposed to his previously asserted position”); Gra

2003See, e.g., Finley v. Kesling, 105 Ill.App.3d 1 , 60 Ill.Dec. 874 , 433 N.E.2d 1112, 1118-19 (1982) (judicial estoppel prevents a witness from contradicting, while testifying under oath, his testimony in a proceeding before a court of another state); Behrens v. Baldenecker, 76 S.D. 327 , 77 N.W.2d 917, 919 (1956) (judicial estoppel prevents a party from “playing fast and loose with the courts”); Yarber v. Pennell, 443 S.W.2d 382, 385 (Tex.Civ.App.1969) (judicial estoppel prevents a party from asserting “a contention which would be diametrically opposed to his previously asserted position”); Gra

2003See, e.g., Finley v. Kesling, 105 Ill.App.3d 1 , 60 Ill.Dec. 874 , 433 N.E.2d 1112, 1118-19 (1982) (judicial estoppel prevents a witness from contradicting, while testifying under oath, his testimony in a proceeding before a court of another state); Behrens v. Baldenecker, 76 S.D. 327 , 77 N.W.2d 917, 919 (1956) (judicial estoppel prevents a party from “playing fast and loose with the courts”); Yarber v. Pennell, 443 S.W.2d 382, 385 (Tex.Civ.App.1969) (judicial estoppel prevents a party from asserting “a contention which would be diametrically opposed to his previously asserted position”); Gra

2003See, e.g., Finley v. Kesling, 105 Ill.App.3d 1 , 60 Ill.Dec. 874 , 433 N.E.2d 1112, 1118-19 (1982) (judicial estoppel prevents a witness from contradicting, while testifying under oath, his testimony in a proceeding before a court of another state); Behrens v. Baldenecker, 76 S.D. 327 , 77 N.W.2d 917, 919 (1956) (judicial estoppel prevents a party from “playing fast and loose with the courts”); Yarber v. Pennell, 443 S.W.2d 382, 385 (Tex.Civ.App.1969) (judicial estoppel prevents a party from asserting “a contention which would be diametrically opposed to his previously asserted position”); Gra