Judicial estoppel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In the practice of law, judicial estoppel (also known as estoppel by inconsistent positions) is an estoppel which precludes a party from taking a position in a case which is contrary to a position they have taken in earlier legal proceedings. Although, in the United States, it is only a part of common law and therefore not sharply defined, it is generally agreed that it can only be cited if the party in question successfully maintained its position in the earlier proceedings and benefited from it.
The principle of judicial estoppel is illustrated by the following example: a defendant is charged in state court with murder. The alleged murder took place in an old, unused fort which was once federal property but has since reverted to state ownership. The defense counsel argues that the fort technically still belongs to the federal government, and thus the state court has no jurisdiction. The judge agrees, and the state charges are dismissed, but federal charges are subsequently filed. The defense cannot now argue that the state court erred in its judgment (i.e., that the fort is actually state property) because the defense would be taking a contradictory position in the same matter and violating the principle of judicial estoppel.[1]
