In the Matter of Thomas v. Cassidy, Debtor-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that judicial estoppel should not be invoked “where the former position was the product of inadvertence or mistake.”
• dismissing an entire claim sua sponte based on judicial estoppel and noting that “even an appellate court may raise the estoppel on its own motion”
• considering a party’s arguments in a prior proceeding, and noting “[w]here a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume a contrary position.”
• judicial estoppel should not be applied “where it would work an injustice, such as where the former position was the product of inadvertence or mistake”
• “the change of position on the legal question is every bit as harmful to the administration of justice as a change on an issue of fact”
• “Judicial estoppel is a doctrine intended to prevent the perversion of the judicial process.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).