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.
10 Montana opinions name it 1 courts 1994–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Montana 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fiedler v. Fiedlergreen2 sentences2014Fiedler v. Fiedler, 266 Mont. 133, 140 , 879 P.2d 675, 679-80 . ¶23 Gates asserts that Donahue raises this judicial estoppel argument for the first time on appeal and therefore this Court should not consider it. 2014Fiedler v. Fiedler, 266 Mont. 133, 140 , 879 P.2d 675, 679-80 . ¶23 Gates asserts that Donahue raises this judicial estoppel argument for the first time on appeal and therefore this Court should not consider it. | 2 | 5 |
Kauffman-Harmon v. Kauffmangreen2 sentences2004In the dissolution matter, Judge Larson noted that Arden had repeatedly and previously testified that he had no interest in the properties; thus the court concluded that Arden’s claim of a beneficial interest in the property via a constructive trust must fail as Arden had unclean hands and was barred by judicial estoppel. ¶15 “The fundamental purpose of judicial estoppel is to protect the integrity of the judicial system and thus to estop a party from playing ‘fast and loose’ with the court system.” Kauffman-Harmon v. Kauffman, 2001 MT 238, ¶ 15 , 307 Mont. 45, ¶ 15 , 36 P.3d 408, ¶ 15 . “[T]h 2004In the dissolution matter, Judge Larson noted that Arden had repeatedly and previously testified that he had no interest in the properties; thus the court concluded that Arden’s claim of a beneficial interest in the property via a constructive trust must fail as Arden had unclean hands and was barred by judicial estoppel. ¶15 “The fundamental purpose of judicial estoppel is to protect the integrity of the judicial system and thus to estop a party from playing ‘fast and loose’ with the court system.” Kauffman-Harmon v. Kauffman, 2001 MT 238, ¶ 15 , 307 Mont. 45, ¶ 15 , 36 P.3d 408, ¶ 15 . “[T]h | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Montana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Traders State Bank of Poplar v. Mann
green
2 sentences1999Fiedler v. Fiedler (1994), 266 Mont. 133, 139 , 879 P.2d 675, 679 (citing Traders State Bank of Poplar v. Mann (1993), 258 Mont. 226, 242 , 852 P.2d 604, 614 ). 1999Fiedler v. Fiedler (1994), 266 Mont. 133, 139 , 879 P.2d 675, 679 (citing Traders State Bank of Poplar v. Mann (1993), 258 Mont. 226, 242 , 852 P.2d 604, 614 ). | 2 | 1994–1999 |
Stanley L. and Carolyn M. Watkins Trust v. Lacosta
green
2 sentences2020Watkins Trust v. Lacosta, 2004 MT 144, ¶ 33 , 321 Mont. 432 , 92 P.3d 620 (“The doctrine of judicial estoppel binds a party to their judicial declarations and precludes a party from taking a position inconsistent with previously made declarations in a subsequent action or proceeding.”). 2020Watkins Trust v. Lacosta, 2004 MT 144, ¶ 33 , 321 Mont. 432 , 92 P.3d 620 (“The doctrine of judicial estoppel binds a party to their judicial declarations and precludes a party from taking a position inconsistent with previously made declarations in a subsequent action or proceeding.”). | 1 | 2020–2020 |