9 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by West Virginia 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 |
|---|---|---|
In the Matter of Thomas v. Cassidy, Debtor-Appellantgreen2 sentences2016First, it is generally recognized that “a court, even an appellate court, may raise [judicial] estoppel on its own motion in an appropriate case.” Matter of Cassidy, 892 F.2d 637, 641 (7th Cir.1990). 2005First, it is generally recognized that “a court, even an appellate court, may raise [judicial] estoppel on its own motion in an appropriate *504 case.” Matter of Cassidy, 892 F.2d 637, 641 (7th Cir.1990). | 2 | 2 |
Grigson v. Creative Artists Agency, L.L.C.green2 sentences2019Va. 482 , 740 S.E.2d 77, 82 (2013) (“We have invoked judicial estoppel, sua sponte[.]”); Grigson v. Creative Artists Agency L.L.C., 210 F.3d 524, 530 (5th Cir. 2000) (“[B]ecause [judicial estoppel] protects the judicial system ... we can apply it sua sponte in certain instances.”); Bethesda Lutheran Homes & Servs. v. Born, 238 F.3d 853, 858 (7th Cir. 2001) (the doctrine of judicial estoppel “is for our protection as well as that of litigants, and so we are not bound to accept a waiver of it”); Rissetto v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 343, 94 F.3d 597, 601 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Because [judicial e 2019Va. 482 , 740 S.E.2d 77 , 82 (2013) ("We have invoked judicial estoppel, sua sponte [.]"); Grigson v. Creative Artists Agency L.L.C ., 210 F.3d 524 , 530 (5th Cir. 2000) ("[B]ecause [judicial estoppel] protects the judicial system ... we can apply it sua sponte in certain instances."); Bethesda Lutheran Homes & Servs. v. Born , 238 F.3d 853 , 858 (7th Cir. 2001) (the doctrine of judicial estoppel "is for our protection as well as that of litigants, and so we are not bound to accept a waiver of it"); Rissetto v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 343 , 94 F.3d 597 , 601 (9th Cir. 1996) ("Because [ju | 1 | 1 |
Harriet Rissetto v. Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 343, a Business Entity, Form Unknown, Michael Beavers and Does 1-25, Inclusivegreen2 sentences2019Va. 482 , 740 S.E.2d 77, 82 (2013) (“We have invoked judicial estoppel, sua sponte[.]”); Grigson v. Creative Artists Agency L.L.C., 210 F.3d 524, 530 (5th Cir. 2000) (“[B]ecause [judicial estoppel] protects the judicial system ... we can apply it sua sponte in certain instances.”); Bethesda Lutheran Homes & Servs. v. Born, 238 F.3d 853, 858 (7th Cir. 2001) (the doctrine of judicial estoppel “is for our protection as well as that of litigants, and so we are not bound to accept a waiver of it”); Rissetto v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 343, 94 F.3d 597, 601 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Because [judicial e 2019Va. 482 , 740 S.E.2d 77 , 82 (2013) ("We have invoked judicial estoppel, sua sponte [.]"); Grigson v. Creative Artists Agency L.L.C ., 210 F.3d 524 , 530 (5th Cir. 2000) ("[B]ecause [judicial estoppel] protects the judicial system ... we can apply it sua sponte in certain instances."); Bethesda Lutheran Homes & Servs. v. Born , 238 F.3d 853 , 858 (7th Cir. 2001) (the doctrine of judicial estoppel "is for our protection as well as that of litigants, and so we are not bound to accept a waiver of it"); Rissetto v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 343 , 94 F.3d 597 , 601 (9th Cir. 1996) ("Because [ju | 1 | 1 |
Eilber v. Floor Care Specialists, Inc.green2 sentences2019Va. 482 , 740 S.E.2d 77 , 82 (2013) ("We have invoked judicial estoppel, sua sponte [.]"); Grigson v. Creative Artists Agency L.L.C ., 210 F.3d 524 , 530 (5th Cir. 2000) ("[B]ecause [judicial estoppel] protects the judicial system ... we can apply it sua sponte in certain instances."); Bethesda Lutheran Homes & Servs. v. Born , 238 F.3d 853 , 858 (7th Cir. 2001) (the doctrine of judicial estoppel "is for our protection as well as that of litigants, and so we are not bound to accept a waiver of it"); Rissetto v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 343 , 94 F.3d 597 , 601 (9th Cir. 1996) ("Because [ju 2019Va. 482 , 740 S.E.2d 77 , 82 (2013) ("We have invoked judicial estoppel, sua sponte [.]"); Grigson v. Creative Artists Agency L.L.C ., 210 F.3d 524 , 530 (5th Cir. 2000) ("[B]ecause [judicial estoppel] protects the judicial system ... we can apply it sua sponte in certain instances."); Bethesda Lutheran Homes & Servs. v. Born , 238 F.3d 853 , 858 (7th Cir. 2001) (the doctrine of judicial estoppel "is for our protection as well as that of litigants, and so we are not bound to accept a waiver of it"); Rissetto v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 343 , 94 F.3d 597 , 601 (9th Cir. 1996) ("Because [ju | 1 | 1 |
Wilson v. Stanburygreen2 sentences2019See Wilson v. Stanbury, 118 Md. 2019See Wilson v. Stanbury , 118 Md. | 1 | 1 |
Bethesda Lutheran Homes and Services, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants/cross-Appellees v. Gerald Born, and Thomas Schleitwilergreen2 sentences2019Va. 482 , 740 S.E.2d 77, 82 (2013) (“We have invoked judicial estoppel, sua sponte[.]”); Grigson v. Creative Artists Agency L.L.C., 210 F.3d 524, 530 (5th Cir. 2000) (“[B]ecause [judicial estoppel] protects the judicial system ... we can apply it sua sponte in certain instances.”); Bethesda Lutheran Homes & Servs. v. Born, 238 F.3d 853, 858 (7th Cir. 2001) (the doctrine of judicial estoppel “is for our protection as well as that of litigants, and so we are not bound to accept a waiver of it”); Rissetto v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 343, 94 F.3d 597, 601 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Because [judicial e 2019Va. 482 , 740 S.E.2d 77 , 82 (2013) ("We have invoked judicial estoppel, sua sponte [.]"); Grigson v. Creative Artists Agency L.L.C ., 210 F.3d 524 , 530 (5th Cir. 2000) ("[B]ecause [judicial estoppel] protects the judicial system ... we can apply it sua sponte in certain instances."); Bethesda Lutheran Homes & Servs. v. Born , 238 F.3d 853 , 858 (7th Cir. 2001) (the doctrine of judicial estoppel "is for our protection as well as that of litigants, and so we are not bound to accept a waiver of it"); Rissetto v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 343 , 94 F.3d 597 , 601 (9th Cir. 1996) ("Because [ju | 1 | 1 |
Larry v. Faircloth Realty, Inc. v. Public Service Commissiongreen2 sentences2019Va. 482 , 740 S.E.2d 77, 82 (2013) (“We have invoked judicial estoppel, sua sponte[.]”); Grigson v. Creative Artists Agency L.L.C., 210 F.3d 524, 530 (5th Cir. 2000) (“[B]ecause [judicial estoppel] protects the judicial system ... we can apply it sua sponte in certain instances.”); Bethesda Lutheran Homes & Servs. v. Born, 238 F.3d 853, 858 (7th Cir. 2001) (the doctrine of judicial estoppel “is for our protection as well as that of litigants, and so we are not bound to accept a waiver of it”); Rissetto v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 343, 94 F.3d 597, 601 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Because [judicial e 2019Va. 482 , 740 S.E.2d 77 , 82 (2013) ("We have invoked judicial estoppel, sua sponte [.]"); Grigson v. Creative Artists Agency L.L.C ., 210 F.3d 524 , 530 (5th Cir. 2000) ("[B]ecause [judicial estoppel] protects the judicial system ... we can apply it sua sponte in certain instances."); Bethesda Lutheran Homes & Servs. v. Born , 238 F.3d 853 , 858 (7th Cir. 2001) (the doctrine of judicial estoppel "is for our protection as well as that of litigants, and so we are not bound to accept a waiver of it"); Rissetto v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local 343 , 94 F.3d 597 , 601 (9th Cir. 1996) ("Because [ju | 1 | 1 |
SER Universal Underwriters & Zurich American Insurance. v. Hon. Patrick Wilsongreen1 sentence2019Va. __, 825 S.E.2d 95, 107 (2019) (“The judicial estoppel doctrine generally 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 or the same proceeding. | 1 | 1 |
Sydenstricker v. Mohangreen2 sentences2008See Sydenstricker v. Mohan, 217 W.Va. 552, 563 , 618 S.E.2d 561, 572 (2005) (holding that doctrine of judicial estoppel could not be applied to prevent a party from pleading alternative defenses because Rule 8(e)(2) permitted this). 2008See Sydenstricker v. Mohan, 217 W.Va. 552, 563 , 618 S.E.2d 561, 572 (2005) (holding that doctrine of judicial estoppel could not be applied to prevent a party from pleading alternative defenses because Rule 8(e)(2) permitted this). | 1 | 1 |
Dallas Sales Co. v. Carlisle Silver Co.green1 sentence2005Dallas Sales Co., Inc. v. Carlisle Silver Co., Inc., 134 S.W.3d 928, 930 (Tex.Ct.App.2004). | 1 | 1 |
Jackson v. County of Los Angelesgreen2 sentences2005Jackson v. County of Los Angeles, 60 Cal. App.4th 171 , 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 96, 103 (1997). 2005Jackson v. County of Los Angeles, 60 Cal. App.4th 171 , 70 Cal.Rptr.2d 96, 103 (1997). | 1 | 1 |
Cothran v. Browngreen2 sentences2005Cothran v. Brown, 357 S.C. 210 , 592 S.E.2d 629, 632 (2004). 2005Cothran v. Brown, 357 S.C. 210 , 592 S.E.2d 629, 632 (2004). | 1 | 1 |
Grady Allen v. Zurich Insurance Companygreen1 sentence2003Co., 667 F.2d 1162, 1166-67 (4th Cir.1982) (citations omitted) ("Closely related to collateral estoppel, but dissimilar in critical respects, is [the doctrine of judicial estoppel which may] be found where neither collateral estoppel nor equitable estoppel ... would apply.”) However, one of the factors to consider under judicial estoppel is whether the party to be estopped "succeeded in persuading a court to accept that party's earlier position New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 750 , 121 S.Ct. at 1815 , 149 L.Ed.2d at 978 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
West Virginia Department of Transportation, Division of Highways v. Robertson
green
2 sentences2012Just as we rejected Ms. Greve’s attempt to incorporate the concept of income averaging into the parties’ agreed-upon income calculation methodology, we similarly refuse to alter the parties’ agreement by relaxing the temporal requirements establishing a prerequisite to the retroactivity of modifications. 10 See Syl. pt. 2, Robertson, 217 W.Va. 497 , 618 S.E.2d 506 (delineating criteria for doctrine of judicial estoppel). 2012Just as we rejected Ms. Greve’s attempt to incorporate the concept of income averaging into the parties’ agreed-upon income calculation methodology, we similarly refuse to alter the parties’ agreement by relaxing the temporal requirements establishing a prerequisite to the retroactivity of modifications. 10 See Syl. pt. 2, Robertson, 217 W.Va. 497 , 618 S.E.2d 506 (delineating criteria for doctrine of judicial estoppel). | 2 | 2012–2019 |
Kelly v. Belcher
green
1 sentence2021Va. 757 , 187 S.E.2d 617 (1972). 11 In its order, the circuit court specifically ruled against Husband’s claims that the doctrine of judicial estoppel precluded Wife from making arguments contrary to the assertions contained in the pleadings. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Blake v. Charleston Area Medical Center, Inc.
green
1 sentence2020We undertake this exercise in view of our “prior admonishment that, even though the requirements of res judicata may be satisfied, we do ‘not rigidly enforce [this doctrine] where to do so would plainly defeat the ends of Justice.’” Blake, 201 W. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Van Deurzen v. Yamaha Motor Corp. USA
green
2 sentences2008Van Deurzen, 688 N.W.2d at 778-82 . 2008Van Deurzen, 688 N.W.2d at 778-82 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
New Hampshire v. Maine
green
2 sentences2003Co., 667 F.2d 1162, 1166-67 (4th Cir.1982) (citations omitted) ("Closely related to collateral estoppel, but dissimilar in critical respects, is [the doctrine of judicial estoppel which may] be found where neither collateral estoppel nor equitable estoppel ... would apply.”) However, one of the factors to consider under judicial estoppel is whether the party to be estopped "succeeded in persuading a court to accept that party's earlier position New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 750 , 121 S.Ct. at 1815 , 149 L.Ed.2d at 978 . 2003Co., 667 F.2d 1162, 1166-67 (4th Cir.1982) (citations omitted) ("Closely related to collateral estoppel, but dissimilar in critical respects, is [the doctrine of judicial estoppel which may] be found where neither collateral estoppel nor equitable estoppel ... would apply.”) However, one of the factors to consider under judicial estoppel is whether the party to be estopped "succeeded in persuading a court to accept that party's earlier position New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 750 , 121 S.Ct. at 1815 , 149 L.Ed.2d at 978 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.