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.
8 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1982–2011 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois 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 |
|---|---|---|
Teledyne Industries, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Boardgreen1 sentence1994As this court has explained: "The doctrine of judicial estoppel rests upon public policy which upholds the sanctity of the oath [citation], and its purpose is to bar as evidence statements and declarations which would be contrary to sworn testimony the party has given in the same or previous judicial proceedings. [Citation.] Having affirmed under oath that a given state of facts exists, a party cannot be permitted to later affirm that the contrary is true." ( Finley v. Kesling, 105 Ill.App.3d at 9 , 60 Ill.Dec. 874 , 433 N.E.2d 1112 .) (See Parisi v. Jenkins, 236 Ill.App.3d at 53 , 177 Ill.Dec | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bidani v. Lewis
green
2 sentences2011However, “ ‘[t]he doctrine of judicial estoppel rests upon public policy which upholds the sanctity of the oath and its purpose is to bar as evidence statements and declarations which would be contrary to sworn testimony the party has given in the same or previous judicial proceedings.’ ” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 962 (quoting Bidani, 285 Ill. 2007App. 3d 545, 550 , 675 N.E.2d 647 (1996). “ ‘The doctrine of judicial estoppel rests upon public policy which upholds the sanctity of the oath and its purpose is to bar as evidence statements and declarations which would be contrary to sworn testimony the party has given in the same or previous judicial proceedings.’ ” Bidani, 285 Ill. | 3 | 2007–2011 |
Parisi v. Jenkins
green
2 sentences1994As this court has explained: "The doctrine of judicial estoppel rests upon public policy which upholds the sanctity of the oath [citation], and its purpose is to bar as evidence statements and declarations which would be contrary to sworn testimony the party has given in the same or previous judicial proceedings. [Citation.] Having affirmed under oath that a given state of facts exists, a party cannot be permitted to later affirm that the contrary is true." ( Finley v. Kesling, 105 Ill.App.3d at 9 , 60 Ill.Dec. 874 , 433 N.E.2d 1112 .) (See Parisi v. Jenkins, 236 Ill.App.3d at 53 , 177 Ill.Dec 1994As this court has explained: "The doctrine of judicial estoppel rests upon public policy which upholds the sanctity of the oath [citation], and its purpose is to bar as evidence statements and declarations which would be contrary to sworn testimony the party has given in the same or previous judicial proceedings. [Citation.] Having affirmed under oath that a given state of facts exists, a party cannot be permitted to later affirm that the contrary is true." ( Finley v. Kesling, 105 Ill.App.3d at 9 , 60 Ill.Dec. 874 , 433 N.E.2d 1112 .) (See Parisi v. Jenkins, 236 Ill.App.3d at 53 , 177 Ill.Dec | 3 | 1994–1996 |
Finley v. Kesling
green
2 sentences1994As this court has explained: "The doctrine of judicial estoppel rests upon public policy which upholds the sanctity of the oath [citation], and its purpose is to bar as evidence statements and declarations which would be contrary to sworn testimony the party has given in the same or previous judicial proceedings. [Citation.] Having affirmed under oath that a given state of facts exists, a party cannot be permitted to later affirm that the contrary is true." ( Finley v. Kesling, 105 Ill.App.3d at 9 , 60 Ill.Dec. 874 , 433 N.E.2d 1112 .) (See Parisi v. Jenkins, 236 Ill.App.3d at 53 , 177 Ill.Dec 1994"The doctrine of judicial estoppel rests upon public policy which upholds the sanctity of the oath [citation], and its purpose is to bar as evidence statements and declarations which would be contrary to sworn testimony the party has given in the same or previous judicial proceedings. [Citation.] Having affirmed under oath that a given state of facts exists, a party cannot be permitted to later affirm that the contrary is true.” (Finley v. Kesling, 105 Ill. | 2 | 1994–1994 |
Moy v. Ng
green
1 sentence2011However, “ ‘[t]he doctrine of judicial estoppel rests upon public policy which upholds the sanctity of the oath and its purpose is to bar as evidence statements and declarations which would be contrary to sworn testimony the party has given in the same or previous judicial proceedings.’ ” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 962 (quoting Bidani, 285 Ill. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Matter of Jones
green
1 sentence2007App. 3d at 549 . "[J]udicial estoppel focuses on the relationship between the litigant and the judicial system." Bidani, 285 Ill. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
King v. Clodfelter
green
2 sentences1982(King v. Clodfelter (1974), 10 Wash. App. 514 , 518 P.2d 206 .) Having affirmed under oath that a given state of facts exists, a party cannot be permitted to later affirm that the contrary is true. 1982(King v. Clodfelter (1974), 10 Wash. App. 514 , 518 P.2d 206 .) Having affirmed under oath that a given state of facts exists, a party cannot be permitted to later affirm that the contrary is true. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Gillespie v. Dunn
neutral
2 sentences1982App. 1976), 89 N.M. 360 , 552 P.2d 796 , cert. denied (1976), 90 N.M. 7 , 558 P.2d 619 , modified as to amount of award (1977), 90 N.M. 208 , 561 P.2d 481 ; Consolidated Copperstate Lines v. Frasher (1956), 141 Cal. App. 2d 916 , 297 P.2d 692 ; Behrens v. Baldenecker (1956), 76 S.D. 327 , 77 N.W.2d 917 ; Chicago, S.S. & S.B.R.R. v. Fleming (7th Cir. 1940), 109 F.2d 419 ; Gillespie v. Dunn (1929), 246 Mich. 415 , 224 N.W. 374 .) The doctrine of judicial estoppel rests upon public policy which upholds the sanctity of the oath (Allen v. Neal (1965), 217 Tenn. 181 , 396 S.W.2d 344 ), and its purpo 1982App. 1976), 89 N.M. 360 , 552 P.2d 796 , cert. denied (1976), 90 N.M. 7 , 558 P.2d 619 , modified as to amount of award (1977), 90 N.M. 208 , 561 P.2d 481 ; Consolidated Copperstate Lines v. Frasher (1956), 141 Cal. App. 2d 916 , 297 P.2d 692 ; Behrens v. Baldenecker (1956), 76 S.D. 327 , 77 N.W.2d 917 ; Chicago, S.S. & S.B.R.R. v. Fleming (7th Cir. 1940), 109 F.2d 419 ; Gillespie v. Dunn (1929), 246 Mich. 415 , 224 N.W. 374 .) The doctrine of judicial estoppel rests upon public policy which upholds the sanctity of the oath (Allen v. Neal (1965), 217 Tenn. 181 , 396 S.W.2d 344 ), and its purpo | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State ex rel. Citizens Bank v. Fowlie
green
2 sentences1982App. 1976), 89 N.M. 360 , 552 P.2d 796 , cert. denied (1976), 90 N.M. 7 , 558 P.2d 619 , modified as to amount of award (1977), 90 N.M. 208 , 561 P.2d 481 ; Consolidated Copperstate Lines v. Frasher (1956), 141 Cal. App. 2d 916 , 297 P.2d 692 ; Behrens v. Baldenecker (1956), 76 S.D. 327 , 77 N.W.2d 917 ; Chicago, S.S. & S.B.R.R. v. Fleming (7th Cir. 1940), 109 F.2d 419 ; Gillespie v. Dunn (1929), 246 Mich. 415 , 224 N.W. 374 .) The doctrine of judicial estoppel rests upon public policy which upholds the sanctity of the oath (Allen v. Neal (1965), 217 Tenn. 181 , 396 S.W.2d 344 ), and its purpo 1982App. 1976), 89 N.M. 360 , 552 P.2d 796 , cert. denied (1976), 90 N.M. 7 , 558 P.2d 619 , modified as to amount of award (1977), 90 N.M. 208 , 561 P.2d 481 ; Consolidated Copperstate Lines v. Frasher (1956), 141 Cal. App. 2d 916 , 297 P.2d 692 ; Behrens v. Baldenecker (1956), 76 S.D. 327 , 77 N.W.2d 917 ; Chicago, S.S. & S.B.R.R. v. Fleming (7th Cir. 1940), 109 F.2d 419 ; Gillespie v. Dunn (1929), 246 Mich. 415 , 224 N.W. 374 .) The doctrine of judicial estoppel rests upon public policy which upholds the sanctity of the oath (Allen v. Neal (1965), 217 Tenn. 181 , 396 S.W.2d 344 ), and its purpo | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Citizens Bank v. C & H Construction & Paving Co.
green
2 sentences1982App. 1976), 89 N.M. 360 , 552 P.2d 796 , cert. denied (1976), 90 N.M. 7 , 558 P.2d 619 , modified as to amount of award (1977), 90 N.M. 208 , 561 P.2d 481 ; Consolidated Copperstate Lines v. Frasher (1956), 141 Cal. App. 2d 916 , 297 P.2d 692 ; Behrens v. Baldenecker (1956), 76 S.D. 327 , 77 N.W.2d 917 ; Chicago, S.S. & S.B.R.R. v. Fleming (7th Cir. 1940), 109 F.2d 419 ; Gillespie v. Dunn (1929), 246 Mich. 415 , 224 N.W. 374 .) The doctrine of judicial estoppel rests upon public policy which upholds the sanctity of the oath (Allen v. Neal (1965), 217 Tenn. 181 , 396 S.W.2d 344 ), and its purpo 1982App. 1976), 89 N.M. 360 , 552 P.2d 796 , cert. denied (1976), 90 N.M. 7 , 558 P.2d 619 , modified as to amount of award (1977), 90 N.M. 208 , 561 P.2d 481 ; Consolidated Copperstate Lines v. Frasher (1956), 141 Cal. App. 2d 916 , 297 P.2d 692 ; Behrens v. Baldenecker (1956), 76 S.D. 327 , 77 N.W.2d 917 ; Chicago, S.S. & S.B.R.R. v. Fleming (7th Cir. 1940), 109 F.2d 419 ; Gillespie v. Dunn (1929), 246 Mich. 415 , 224 N.W. 374 .) The doctrine of judicial estoppel rests upon public policy which upholds the sanctity of the oath (Allen v. Neal (1965), 217 Tenn. 181 , 396 S.W.2d 344 ), and its purpo | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Allen v. Neal
green
2 sentences1982App. 1976), 89 N.M. 360 , 552 P.2d 796 , cert. denied (1976), 90 N.M. 7 , 558 P.2d 619 , modified as to amount of award (1977), 90 N.M. 208 , 561 P.2d 481 ; Consolidated Copperstate Lines v. Frasher (1956), 141 Cal. App. 2d 916 , 297 P.2d 692 ; Behrens v. Baldenecker (1956), 76 S.D. 327 , 77 N.W.2d 917 ; Chicago, S.S. & S.B.R.R. v. Fleming (7th Cir. 1940), 109 F.2d 419 ; Gillespie v. Dunn (1929), 246 Mich. 415 , 224 N.W. 374 .) The doctrine of judicial estoppel rests upon public policy which upholds the sanctity of the oath (Allen v. Neal (1965), 217 Tenn. 181 , 396 S.W.2d 344 ), and its purpo 1982App. 1976), 89 N.M. 360 , 552 P.2d 796 , cert. denied (1976), 90 N.M. 7 , 558 P.2d 619 , modified as to amount of award (1977), 90 N.M. 208 , 561 P.2d 481 ; Consolidated Copperstate Lines v. Frasher (1956), 141 Cal. App. 2d 916 , 297 P.2d 692 ; Behrens v. Baldenecker (1956), 76 S.D. 327 , 77 N.W.2d 917 ; Chicago, S.S. & S.B.R.R. v. Fleming (7th Cir. 1940), 109 F.2d 419 ; Gillespie v. Dunn (1929), 246 Mich. 415 , 224 N.W. 374 .) The doctrine of judicial estoppel rests upon public policy which upholds the sanctity of the oath (Allen v. Neal (1965), 217 Tenn. 181 , 396 S.W.2d 344 ), and its purpo | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Chicago, S. S. & S. B. R. R. v. Fleming
green
1 sentence1982App. 1976), 89 N.M. 360 , 552 P.2d 796 , cert. denied (1976), 90 N.M. 7 , 558 P.2d 619 , modified as to amount of award (1977), 90 N.M. 208 , 561 P.2d 481 ; Consolidated Copperstate Lines v. Frasher (1956), 141 Cal. App. 2d 916 , 297 P.2d 692 ; Behrens v. Baldenecker (1956), 76 S.D. 327 , 77 N.W.2d 917 ; Chicago, S.S. & S.B.R.R. v. Fleming (7th Cir. 1940), 109 F.2d 419 ; Gillespie v. Dunn (1929), 246 Mich. 415 , 224 N.W. 374 .) The doctrine of judicial estoppel rests upon public policy which upholds the sanctity of the oath (Allen v. Neal (1965), 217 Tenn. 181 , 396 S.W.2d 344 ), and its purpo | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Behrens v. Baldenecker
green
2 sentences1982App. 1976), 89 N.M. 360 , 552 P.2d 796 , cert. denied (1976), 90 N.M. 7 , 558 P.2d 619 , modified as to amount of award (1977), 90 N.M. 208 , 561 P.2d 481 ; Consolidated Copperstate Lines v. Frasher (1956), 141 Cal. App. 2d 916 , 297 P.2d 692 ; Behrens v. Baldenecker (1956), 76 S.D. 327 , 77 N.W.2d 917 ; Chicago, S.S. & S.B.R.R. v. Fleming (7th Cir. 1940), 109 F.2d 419 ; Gillespie v. Dunn (1929), 246 Mich. 415 , 224 N.W. 374 .) The doctrine of judicial estoppel rests upon public policy which upholds the sanctity of the oath (Allen v. Neal (1965), 217 Tenn. 181 , 396 S.W.2d 344 ), and its purpo 1982App. 1976), 89 N.M. 360 , 552 P.2d 796 , cert. denied (1976), 90 N.M. 7 , 558 P.2d 619 , modified as to amount of award (1977), 90 N.M. 208 , 561 P.2d 481 ; Consolidated Copperstate Lines v. Frasher (1956), 141 Cal. App. 2d 916 , 297 P.2d 692 ; Behrens v. Baldenecker (1956), 76 S.D. 327 , 77 N.W.2d 917 ; Chicago, S.S. & S.B.R.R. v. Fleming (7th Cir. 1940), 109 F.2d 419 ; Gillespie v. Dunn (1929), 246 Mich. 415 , 224 N.W. 374 .) The doctrine of judicial estoppel rests upon public policy which upholds the sanctity of the oath (Allen v. Neal (1965), 217 Tenn. 181 , 396 S.W.2d 344 ), and its purpo | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Consolidated Copperstate Lines v. Frasher
green
2 sentences1982App. 1976), 89 N.M. 360 , 552 P.2d 796 , cert. denied (1976), 90 N.M. 7 , 558 P.2d 619 , modified as to amount of award (1977), 90 N.M. 208 , 561 P.2d 481 ; Consolidated Copperstate Lines v. Frasher (1956), 141 Cal. App. 2d 916 , 297 P.2d 692 ; Behrens v. Baldenecker (1956), 76 S.D. 327 , 77 N.W.2d 917 ; Chicago, S.S. & S.B.R.R. v. Fleming (7th Cir. 1940), 109 F.2d 419 ; Gillespie v. Dunn (1929), 246 Mich. 415 , 224 N.W. 374 .) The doctrine of judicial estoppel rests upon public policy which upholds the sanctity of the oath (Allen v. Neal (1965), 217 Tenn. 181 , 396 S.W.2d 344 ), and its purpo 1982App. 1976), 89 N.M. 360 , 552 P.2d 796 , cert. denied (1976), 90 N.M. 7 , 558 P.2d 619 , modified as to amount of award (1977), 90 N.M. 208 , 561 P.2d 481 ; Consolidated Copperstate Lines v. Frasher (1956), 141 Cal. App. 2d 916 , 297 P.2d 692 ; Behrens v. Baldenecker (1956), 76 S.D. 327 , 77 N.W.2d 917 ; Chicago, S.S. & S.B.R.R. v. Fleming (7th Cir. 1940), 109 F.2d 419 ; Gillespie v. Dunn (1929), 246 Mich. 415 , 224 N.W. 374 .) The doctrine of judicial estoppel rests upon public policy which upholds the sanctity of the oath (Allen v. Neal (1965), 217 Tenn. 181 , 396 S.W.2d 344 ), and its purpo | 1 | 1982–1982 |