Goldman v. White Rose Distributing Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that company was judicially estopped from asserting that former company president was not entitled to distribution of monies because company’s attorney took opposite position in prior lawsuit
• holding that company was judicially estopped from asserting that former company president was not entitled to distribution of monies because company’s attorney took opposite position in prior lawsuit
• client’s testimony together with counsel’s arguments were enough to show client was taking inconsistent position in first lawsuit from position in second lawsuit

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).