Federal Case

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that district court did not err by declining to impose sanctions when violation was harmless
• holding “[j]udicial estoppel prevents a party that has taken one position in litigating a particular set of facts and prevailed under that position from later reversing its position when it is to its advantage to do so.”
• affirming the district court’s harmlessness finding where the party seeking to exclude an expert’s opinion participated in the expert’s deposition and knew of the opposing party’s intent to rely on that opinion
• “Judicial estoppel prevents a party that has taken one position in litigating a particular set of facts and prevailed under that position from later reversing its position when it is to its advantage to do so.”
• “Judicial estoppel prevents a party that has taken one position in litigating a particular set of facts and prevailed under that position from later reversing its position when it is to its advantage to do so.”
• “Judicial estoppel prevents a party that has taken one position in litigating a particular set of facts and prevailed under that position from later reversing its position when it is to its advantage to do so.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).