Louis Eugene Russell v. Tom Rolfs, Superintendent

How courts have described this case

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

• applying judicial estoppel to a mixed question regarding the adequacy and availability of a state court remedy in that particular case
• applying judicial estop- pel to a mixed question regarding the adequacy and availability of a state court remedy in that particular case
• applying judicial estop- pel to a mixed question regarding the adequacy and availability of a state court remedy in that particular case
• state prohibited from arguing that criminal defendant’s appellate petition is procedurally barred in state court after successfully arguing in district court that defendant had an adequate state remedy
• judicial estoppel bars a party from making a factual assertion in a legal proceeding \which directly contradicts an earlier assertion made in the same proceeding or a prior one\
• judicial estoppel “protect[s] against a litigant playing ‘fast and loose with the courts’” (quoting Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Scott, 869 F.2d 1306, 1311 (9th Cir. 1989) (Hall, J., dissenting))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).