{"id":"LAW-019","kind":"law","level":"law","jurisdiction":"","state":"","metro":"","industry":"","agency":"","eco":"","issuer":"Supreme Court of the United States","authority":"New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001)","instrument":"New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001)","title":"New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001)","dateIssued":"2001-05-29","effective":"","end":"","startDate":"2001-05-29","endDate":"","quarters":[],"types":[],"addressees":[],"clause":"First, a party\u0027s later position must be \u0022clearly inconsistent\u0022 with its earlier position.... Second, courts regularly inquire whether the party has succeeded in persuading a court to accept that party\u0027s earlier position, so that judicial acceptance of an inconsistent position in a later proceeding would create \u0022the perception that either the first or the second court was misled\u0022... A third consideration is whether 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.... In enumerating these factors, we do not establish inflexible prerequisites or an exhaustive formula (New Hampshire at 750-51)... This court has restricted the application of judicial estoppel to cases where the court relied on, or \u0022accepted,\u0022 the party\u0027s previous inconsistent position.... The application of judicial estoppel is not limited to bar the assertion of inconsistent positions in the same litigation, but is also appropriate to bar litigants from making incompatible statements in two different cases (Hamilton at 782-83)... judicial estoppel \u0022seeks to prevent the deliberate manipulation of the courts,\u0022 and therefore should not apply \u0022when a party\u0027s prior position was based on inadvertence or mistake\u0022 (Ibrahim at 1009, applying the New Hampshire factors to the government)","enforcement":"","functions":[],"notes":"Judicial acceptance: Doc. 49 at 15 (\u0027This Court agrees\u0027 that the ten-percent provision is a safe harbor and that eligibility turns on \u0027facts and circumstances\u0027), 16, 17, 26, 27; the Ninth Circuit argument is calendared for Oct. 26, 2026 and the United States repeated the positions in its Brief for Appellees at 26, 37-38, 41, 44-45, 49, 58.","sourceUrl":"https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep532/usrep532742/usrep532742.pdf","snapshot":"","fileExists":true,"fileBytes":568909,"grade":"primary","character":"case","description":"","collection":"LEG-A","url":"/library/LAW-019","exhibitUrl":"/exhibit/LAW-019","citation":"Supreme Court of the United States, New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (May 29, 2001) (Ex. LAW-019)","stateName":"","related":[]}