Skip to main content

Fintak v. Fintak

Citations

  • 120 So. 3d 177
  • 2013 WL 4483103
  • 2013 Fla. App. LEXIS 13472

How courts have described this case

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

  • holding that for judicial estoppel to apply, “the party claiming estoppel must have relied on or been misled by the former position” and “the party seeking estoppel must have changed his or her position to his or her detriment based on the representation”
  • “[T]he party against whom estoppel is sought must have asserted a clearly inconsistent or conflicting position in a prior judicial proceeding.” (citing Blumberg v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co., 790 So. 2d 1061, 1066 (Fla. 2001))
  • \[T]he party against whom estoppel is sought must have asserted a clearly inconsistent or conflicting position in a prior judicial proceeding.\ (citing Blumberg v. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. , 790 So.2d 1061 , 1066 (Fla. 2001) )
  • “A party is permitted to plead in the alternative during litigation, and it follows that a party may also take inconsistent actions in his or her own affairs as a mechanism for ‘hedging the bets,’ so long as that action does not result in prejudice to another party.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Silberman, Sleet, Wallace

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.