· 5/29/2001
New Hampshire v. Maine
Citations
- 532 U.S. 742
- 121 S. Ct. 1808
- 149 L. Ed. 2d 968
- 2001 U.S. LEXIS 3981
- 14 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 283
- 2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4303
- 2001 Daily Journal DAR 4303
- 69 U.S.L.W. 4393
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that judicial estoppel may be warranted if, among other things, a party’s later position is “clearly inconsistent” with its earlier position
- holding that judicial estoppel may be warranted if, among other things, a party's later position is \clearly inconsistent\ with its earlier position
- holding that in order to invoke judicial estoppel, “a party’s later position must be ‘clearly inconsistent’ with its earlier position”
- recognizing that judicial estoppel might not be applicable if inconsistent positions result from change in public policy, statutory provisions, or facts
- holding that in order to invoke judicial estoppel, \a party's later position must be `clearly inconsistent' with its earlier position\
- recognizing that judicial estoppel might not be applicable if inconsistent positions result from change in public policy, statutory provisions, or facts
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Ginsburg, Squter
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.