Walter Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “courts must always give due consideration to all of the circumstances of a particular case when considering the applicability of this doctrine”
• explaining that because judicial estoppel is designed to protect the judicial process rather than litigants, a party’s detrimental reliance on a debtor’s inconsistent position is unnecessary
• noting that the “two factors applied in the Eleventh Circuit are consistent with the Supreme Court’s instructions” in New Hampshire
• explaining that “ ‘the debtor’s failure to satisfy its statutory disclosure duty is ‘inadvertent’ only when, in general, the debtor either lacks knowledge of the undisclosed claims or has no motive for their concealment’ ”
• explaining that because “the doctrine of estoppel is intended to protect the courts rather than the litigants, prejudice to the opponent from the change of position is not a necessary element of judicial estoppel”
• determining that debtor took inconsistent positions under oath because, among other things, he failed to disclose his employment discrimination claim to bankruptcy court, even when he requested conversion from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7 bankruptcy

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).