Judicial Estoppel & Misleading the Court

19 Jan. 12 - Inconsistent positions taken in different court proceedings is called judicial estoppel.

For judicial estoppel to apply:

(1) `a party's later position must be "clearly inconsistent" with its earlier position';

(2) the party must have been successful in the prior proceeding `so that judicial acceptance of an inconsistent position in a later proceeding would create "the perception that either the first or second court was misled"'; and

(3) `the party seeking to assert an inconsistent position would derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party if not estopped.'

New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 750-51.

The Alabama Civil Court of Appeals has stated that `[t]he purpose of judicial estoppel is "`to protect the integrity of the judicial process' by `prohibiting parties from deliberately changing positions according to the exigencies of the moment.'"

Judicial estoppel may apply to statements previously made in both judicial proceedings and quasi-judicial proceedings, see Selzer Auto. L.P. v. Cumberland Plastic Sys., LLC, 70 So. 3d 272, 276 (Ala. 2010),

See WHITE TIGER GRAPHICS, INC. v. Clemons, (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) and Hamm v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 52 So. 3d 484, 494 (Ala. 2010).