Skip to main content
· 2/9/2001

United States v. Donald Newell

Citations

  • 239 F.3d 917
  • 87 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 850
  • 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 1898
  • 2001 WL 109525

How courts have described this case

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

  • for judicial estoppel to apply, prior inconsistent argument must have been accepted by the court in some manner
  • “exclusionary rules are disfavored as remedies for nonconstitutional violations of law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Posner, Ripple, Evans

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.