Fifth Circuit· 4/4/2003

Hall v. GE Plastic Pacific PTE Ltd.

Citations

327 F.3d 391
2003 WL 1747764

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).

Judges: DeMOSS, Jones, Wiener

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

84 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.