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.
7 canonical passages across 5 cases, quoted by 65 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Reed v. City of Arlington.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Reed v. City of Arlington Anchor | green | “(1) the party against whom judicial estoppel is sought has asserted a legal position which is plainly inconsistent with a prior position; (2) a court accepted the prior position; and (3) the party did not act inadvertently.” | 22 |
| 2 | Browning Manufacturing v. Mims (In Re Coastal Plains, Inc.) | green | “a common law doctrine by which a party who has assumed one position in his pleadings may be estopped from assuming an inconsistent position.” | 9 |
| 3 | Browning Manufacturing v. Mims (In Re Coastal Plains, Inc.) | green | “in considering judicial estoppel for bankruptcy cases, the debtor's failure to satisfy its statutory disclosure duty is 'inadvertent' only when, in general, the debtor either lacks knowledge of the undisclosed claims or has no motive for their concealment.” | 9 |
| 4 | McClure v. Ashcroft | green | “a district court abuses its discretion if it: (1) relies on clearly erroneous factual findings; (2) relies on erroneous conclusions of law; or (3) misapplies the law to the facts.” | 8 |
| 5 | Reed v. City of Arlington | green | “the doctrine of judicial estoppel 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.” | 8 |
| 6 | Superior Crewboats, Inc. v. Primary P & I Underwriters | green | “reap a windfall had they been able to recover on the undisclosed claim without having disclosed it to the creditors.” | 5 |
| 7 | Faye Brandon v. Interfirst Corporation, and John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company | green | “preventing parties from playing fast and loose with the courts to suit the exigencies of self interest” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.