Scarano v. Central R. Co. Of New Jersey

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that it is “intentional self-contradiction . . . used as means of obtaining unfair advantage” that the doctrine should prevent
• observing that the application of judicial estoppel prevents the use of “intentional self-contradiction . . . as a means of obtaining an unfair advantage”
• applying judicial estoppel based upon position previously asserted in jury trial
• judicial estoppel forbids use of “intentional self-contradiction ... as a means of obtaining unfair advantage”
• judicial estoppel prevents parties from “playing ‘fast and loose with the courts’ ” (quoting Stretch v. Watson, 6 N. J. Super. 456, 469, 69 A. 2d 596, 603 (1949))
• \such use of inconsistent positions would most flagrantly exemplify that playing 'fast and loose with the courts' which has been emphasized as an evil the court should not tolerate.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).