Judicial estoppel acts to preclude a party from asserting a position inconsistent with a position previously taken. taken in the same or earlier legal proceeding. The doctrine is meant to protect the integrity of the judicial proceedings.
The primary determination made by the court turns on whether a party is attempting to “establish an inconsistent or different cause of action arising out of the same occurrence.” However, judicial estoppel also prevents a litigant from advancing an argument that contradicts a position previously taken that the court was persuaded to accept as the basis for its ruling.
The doctrine is not appropriate in all situations; parties raise many issues throughout a lengthy litigation, and only those arguments that persuade the court can form the basis for judicial estoppel. “[J]udicial estoppel operates only where the litigant’s contradicts another position that the litigant previously took and that the Court was successfully induced to adopt in a judicial ruling.”
- ↑ State v. Chao, 2006 WL 2788180 at *9 (Del. Super. Sep. 25, 2006) (citing Pesta v. Warren, 2004 WL 1282214, at *1 (Del. Super. May 24, 2004)).
- ↑ B.F. Fish & Co. v. Gray, 933 A.2d 1231, 1241 (Del. 2007)(full-text); Chao, 2006 WL 2788180, at *1.
- ↑ Chao, 2006 WL 2788180 at *9 (citing Kesterson v. American Cas. Co., 1988 WL 90497, at *3 (Del. Super. Aug. 15, 1988)).
- ↑ Siegman v. Palomar Med. Techs., Inc., 1998 WL 409352, at *3 (Del. Ch. July 13, 1998).
- ↑ Id. at *3 (emphasis in original).