One would refer to the doctrine of judicial estoppel to prevent litigants from asserting claims in a court proceeding that are inconsistent with a prior statement, one would refer to the doctrine of judicial estoppel. This doctrine preserves the integrity of the judicial process by prohibiting parties from deliberately changing positions due to the likelihood of being defeated by the opposing side. Additionally, when this doctrine is applied, the court uses its inherent discretion in an effort to prohibit fraudulent activities by litigants.

For instance, if a litigant prevails in a judicial proceeding and takes a particular position, they can not come back later and present an inconsistent position in relation to judicial proceedings. Some courts treat this doctrine as an affirmative defense under the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c).
The U.S. Supreme Court held that in the New Hampshire v. Maine case, the doctrine of judicial estoppel might not apply if a party has a prior position that was based on inadvertence. Whether or not there is a precise formula for determining when to use this doctrine, the court provided three factors in which the doctrine applies:
In the case of Shufeldt v. Baker, the court found that the doctrine of judicial estoppel applied to the plaintiff’s legal malpractice claims against his former law firm. In the original litigation, the plaintiff reached a settlement in which he contended that the settlement was less favorable than it could have been due to his time-barred claims. The plaintiff presented distinct positions during the proceeding, later leading the court to determine that the doctrine of judicial estoppel was applicable.
Lastly, three essential tips to recall when applying the doctrine of judicial estoppel. First, when invoking the doctrine, caution should be taken to prevent the destruction of the truth-seeking function of the court. To add, this is because the doctrine prevents a contradictory position rather than examining the truth of either statement claimed by a litigant. Secondly, it’s crucial to comprehend fully what the opposing party files in their initial position in the proceeding to ensure that they are not wavering from either side. If it is found that they have, the claims can be dismissed entirely. And lastly, if the doctrine is found to be applicable, you must consider the factors from the New Hampshire v. Maine case. Notably, there are other factors that can render the doctrine applicable based on the facts in the case.
Recognized in the legal industry as dedicated board-certified lawyers and Rising Stars.
Your project will be handled by legal experts every time. You will have the most experienced attorneys working for you.
Let's talk about your legal issue
Wilson Legal Group P.C.
d/b/a Wilson Whitaker Rynell
(972) 248-8080 (Dallas) MAIN OFFICE
(713) 830-2207 (Houston) Appointment Only
(512) 691-4100 (Austin) Appointment Only
For more information on how we can assist in your intellectual property, commercial litigation, divorce, or other personal needs, let us know how we can help you:
WILSON WHITAKER RYNELL
Thank You for Contacting Us!
Your information has been sent, and we will contact you shorlty...issues.
WILSON WHITAKER RYNELL
Oops, there was an error sending your message.
Please try again later.
Disclaimer:
This form does not establish an attorney-client relationship, and should only be used to contact the firm about scheduling a call or meeting. No confidential or sensitive information should be sent using this form.
We represent clients nationwide, including Dallas, Austin, Houston, and other Texas areas such as Fort Worth, Arlington, Carrollton, Plano, Allen, Lewisville, Flower Mound, Irving, Denton, McKinney, North Richland Hills, and all cities within Dallas County, Tarrant County, Collin County, and Denton County.
Wilson Whitaker Rynell
16610 Dallas Parkway, Suite 1000
Dallas, Texas 75248
972-248-8080 (MAIN)
972-248-8088 (FAX)
info@wrrlegal.com (E-MAIL)