Hall v. GE Plastic Pacific PTE Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the judicial acceptance requirement could be met if a party makes an argument “with an explicit intent to induce the district court’s reliance. . .regardless of whether that party prevails”
• noting that judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine, and the decision whether to invoke it is within the court’s discretion
• applying two-factor test to judicial estoppel determination in non-bankruptcy case, namely, (a) whether position was clearly inconsistent, and (b) whether court was convinced to accept such position
• applying estoppel because the plaintiff first argued that one defendant was the manufacturer of the product at issue and then later argued a different defendant was the manufacturer
• explaining the doctrine of judicial estoppel applies to more than just sworn statements of a party and has never held that the doctrine applies only to a party’s sworn statements
• “To determine whether an issue is substantive or procedural, this Court must consider the ‘twin aims’ of Erie.... ” (emphasis added)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).