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.
15 canonical passages across 9 cases, quoted by 390 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 New Hampshire v. Maine.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | New Hampshire v. Maine Anchor | green | “where a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume a contrary position, especially if it be to the prejudice of the party who has acquiesced in the po…” | 99 |
| 2 | New Hampshire v. Maine | green | “generally prevents a party from prevailing in one phase of a case on an argument and then relying on a contradictory argument to prevail in another phase.” | 89 |
| 3 | New Hampshire v. Maine | green | “whether the party seeking to assert an inconsistent position would derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party if not estopped.” | 50 |
| 4 | Lawrence Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, an Illinois Corporation David's Restaurant Supply | green | “judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that precludes a party from gaining an advantage by asserting one position, and then later seeking an advantage by taking a clearly inconsistent position.” | 34 |
| 5 | Pegram v. Herdrich | green | “generally prevents a party from prevailing in one phase of a case on an argument and then relying on a contradictory argument to prevail in another phase.” | 24 |
| 6 | Davis v. Wakelee | green | “where a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume a contrary position, especially if it be to the prejudice of the party who has acquiesced in the po…” | 22 |
| 7 | Pegram v. Herdrich | green | “judicial estoppel generally prevents a party from prevailing in one phase of a case on an argument and then relying on a contradictory argument to prevail in another phase.” | 15 |
| 8 | Pegram v. Herdrich | 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 |
| 9 | Louis Eugene Russell v. Tom Rolfs, Superintendent | green | “is an equitable doctrine invoked by a court at its discretion.” | 7 |
| 10 | Davis v. Wakelee | green | “generally prevents a party from prevailing in one phase of a case on an argument and then relying on a contradictory argument to prevail in another phase.” | 6 |
| 11 | Lowery v. Stovall | green | “ensures that judicial estoppel is applied in the narrowest of circumstances.” | 6 |
| 12 | William Edwards v. Aetna Life Insurance Company | green | “prohibiting parties from deliberately changing positions according to the exigencies of the moment,” | 5 |
| 13 | John S. Clark Company v. Faggert & Frieden, P.C. | green | “the party who is alleged to be estopped intentionally misled the court to gain unfair advantage,” | 5 |
| 14 | Johnson v. Lindon City Corp. | green | “first, a party's later position must be 'clearly inconsistent' with its earlier position.” | 3 |
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.