judicial estoppel doctrine in Nebraska

2025The Nebraska Supreme Court recently stated that for a party to have successfully asserted a position in a prior action for purposes of judicial estoppel “‘the party must have been successful in getting the first court to accept the position’” and absent “‘such acceptance, the doctrine of judicial estoppel does not apply.’” Clemens v. Emme, 316 Neb. 777, 793 , 7 N.W.3d 166 , 180-81 (2024) (quoting Jardine v. McVey, 276 Neb. 1023, 1032 , 759 N.W.2d 690, 697 (2009)).

2024EMME Cite as 316 Neb. 777 that the doctrines of judicial estoppel and inconsistent posi- tions “do[] not apply to the facts of this case.” 21 [8,9] Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that a court invokes at its discretion to protect the integrity of the judicial process. 22 The doctrine of judicial estoppel “protects the integ- rity of the judicial process by preventing a party from taking a position inconsistent with one successfully and unequivocally asserted by the same party in a prior proceeding.” 23 [10] Fundamentally, the intent behind the doctrine of judi- cial estoppel is to p

2025Co., 291 Neb. at 289 , 865 N.W.2d at 114–15.

2025Co., 291 Neb. 278, 289 , 865 N.W.2d 105 , 114-15 (2015).

2024As we have explained, for a party to have successfully asserted a position in a prior action for purposes of judicial estoppel, “the party must have been successful in getting the first court to accept the position.” 29 “[A]bsent such acceptance, the doctrine of judicial estoppel does not apply.” 30 Judicial acceptance does not require that a party prevail on the merits. 31 However, the position urged by 28 Cf., deNourie & Yost Homes v. Frost, 295 Neb. 912 , 893 N.W.2d 669 (2017) (claim for breach of contract not inconsistent with fraud claim, where fraud claim was premised on existence of con

2024As we have explained, for a party to have successfully asserted a position in a prior action for purposes of judicial estoppel, “the party must have been successful in getting the first court to accept the position.” 29 “[A]bsent such acceptance, the doctrine of judicial estoppel does not apply.” 30 Judicial acceptance does not require that a party prevail on the merits. 31 However, the position urged by 28 Cf., deNourie & Yost Homes v. Frost, 295 Neb. 912 , 893 N.W.2d 669 (2017) (claim for breach of contract not inconsistent with fraud claim, where fraud claim was premised on existence of con

2024As we have explained, for a party to have successfully asserted a position in a prior action for purposes of judicial estoppel, “the party must have been successful in getting the first court to accept the position.” 29 “[A]bsent such acceptance, the doctrine of judicial estoppel does not apply.” 30 Judicial acceptance does not require that a party prevail on the merits. 31 However, the position urged by 28 Cf., deNourie & Yost Homes v. Frost, 295 Neb. 912 , 893 N.W.2d 669 (2017) (claim for breach of contract not inconsistent with fraud claim, where fraud claim was premised on existence of con

2024As we have explained, for a party to have successfully asserted a position in a prior action for purposes of judicial estoppel, “the party must have been successful in getting the first court to accept the position.” 29 “[A]bsent such acceptance, the doctrine of judicial estoppel does not apply.” 30 Judicial acceptance does not require that a party prevail on the merits. 31 However, the position urged by 28 Cf., deNourie & Yost Homes v. Frost, 295 Neb. 912 , 893 N.W.2d 669 (2017) (claim for breach of contract not inconsistent with fraud claim, where fraud claim was premised on existence of con

2024As we have explained, for a party to have successfully asserted a position in a prior action for purposes of judicial estoppel, “the party must have been successful in getting the first court to accept the position.” 29 “[A]bsent such acceptance, the doctrine of judicial estoppel does not apply.” 30 Judicial acceptance does not require that a party prevail on the merits. 31 However, the position urged by 28 Cf., deNourie & Yost Homes v. Frost, 295 Neb. 912 , 893 N.W.2d 669 (2017) (claim for breach of contract not inconsistent with fraud claim, where fraud claim was premised on existence of con

2024As we have explained, for a party to have successfully asserted a position in a prior action for purposes of judicial estoppel, “the party must have been successful in getting the first court to accept the position.” 29 “[A]bsent such acceptance, the doctrine of judicial estoppel does not apply.” 30 Judicial acceptance does not require that a party prevail on the merits. 31 However, the position urged by 28 Cf., deNourie & Yost Homes v. Frost, 295 Neb. 912 , 893 N.W.2d 669 (2017) (claim for breach of contract not inconsistent with fraud claim, where fraud claim was premised on existence of con

2024EMME Cite as 316 Neb. 777 that the doctrines of judicial estoppel and inconsistent posi- tions “do[] not apply to the facts of this case.” 21 [8,9] Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that a court invokes at its discretion to protect the integrity of the judicial process. 22 The doctrine of judicial estoppel “protects the integ- rity of the judicial process by preventing a party from taking a position inconsistent with one successfully and unequivocally asserted by the same party in a prior proceeding.” 23 [10] Fundamentally, the intent behind the doctrine of judi- cial estoppel is to p

2024EMME Cite as 316 Neb. 777 that the doctrines of judicial estoppel and inconsistent posi- tions “do[] not apply to the facts of this case.” 21 [8,9] Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that a court invokes at its discretion to protect the integrity of the judicial process. 22 The doctrine of judicial estoppel “protects the integ- rity of the judicial process by preventing a party from taking a position inconsistent with one successfully and unequivocally asserted by the same party in a prior proceeding.” 23 [10] Fundamentally, the intent behind the doctrine of judi- cial estoppel is to p

2022We have previously quoted one court’s explanation that the purpose of the rule is “‘to pre- vent parties from playing fast and loose with the courts.’” Id. at 289, 865 N.W.2d at 114, quoting Ryan Operations G.P. v. Santiam-Midwest Lumber Co., 81 F.3d 355 (3d Cir. 1996). [18] The judicial estoppel doctrine, however, is to be applied with caution so as to avoid impinging on the truth-seeking function of the court, because the doctrine precludes a con- tradictory position without examining the truth of either state- ment.

2020Group, supra note 4 . 62 Hike v. State, 297 Neb. 212 , 899 N.W.2d 614 (2017). 63 Id. - 19 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports WESTERN ETHANOL CO. v. MIDWEST RENEWABLE ENERGY Cite as 305 Neb. 1 impinging on the truth-seeking function of the court, because the doctrine precludes a contradictory position without exam- ining the truth of either statement.64 We have held that bad faith or an actual intent to mislead on the part of the party asserting inconsistent positions must be demonstrated before the judicial estoppel doctrine may be invoked.65 [20,21] Whether judicial

2020Group, supra note 4 . 62 Hike v. State, 297 Neb. 212 , 899 N.W.2d 614 (2017). 63 Id. - 19 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports WESTERN ETHANOL CO. v. MIDWEST RENEWABLE ENERGY Cite as 305 Neb. 1 impinging on the truth-seeking function of the court, because the doctrine precludes a contradictory position without exam- ining the truth of either statement.64 We have held that bad faith or an actual intent to mislead on the part of the party asserting inconsistent positions must be demonstrated before the judicial estoppel doctrine may be invoked.65 [20,21] Whether judicial

2007However, the doctrine of judicial estoppel does not apply in this case because the district court never accepted the claim that the attorney fee provision was applicable. “ ‘Absent judicial acceptance of the inconsistent position, application of the rule is unwarranted because no risk of inconsistent results exists.’” Vowers & Sons, Inc. v. Strasheim, 254 Neb. at 514 , 576 N.W.2d at 824 .

2007However, the doctrine of judicial estoppel does not apply in this case because the district court never accepted the claim that the attorney fee provision was applicable. “ ‘Absent judicial acceptance of the inconsistent position, application of the rule is unwarranted because no risk of inconsistent results exists.’” Vowers & Sons, Inc. v. Strasheim, 254 Neb. at 514 , 576 N.W.2d at 824 .

1998Inconsistent claims against different parties may be barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel, which we adopted in Melcher v. Bank of Madison, 248 Neb. 793 , 539 N.W.2d 837 (1995).

1998Inconsistent claims against different parties may be barred by the doctrine of judicial estoppel, which we adopted in Melcher v. Bank of Madison, 248 Neb. 793 , 539 N.W.2d 837 (1995).

1998Co., 690 F.2d 595 (6th Cir. 1982), a case we relied upon in Melcher in adopting the doctrine of judicial estoppel, the court held that a settlement of a service-connected disability claim against the Veteran’s Administration did not constitute a successful assertion of that claim so as to bar a subsequent claim against a private disability insurer whose policy excluded service-connected disabilities.

1998The court reasoned that the “requirement that the position be successfully asserted means that the party must have been successful in getting the first court to accept the position,” and that in the absence of such acceptance, the doctrine of judicial estoppel did not apply. 690 F.2d at 599 .