United States v. Ibrahim, 522 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2008) (CAP text)

The record

Level

Legal authority

Authority

United States v. Ibrahim, 522 F.3d 1003 (9th Cir. 2008) (CAP text)

Issued

2008-04-14 Apr. 14, 2008

In force

Apr. 14, 2008 (no end date recorded; counted as in force for 120 days)

Character

case

Operative words

First, a party's later position must be "clearly inconsistent" with its earlier position.... Second, courts regularly inquire whether the party has succeeded in persuading a court to accept that party's earlier position, so that judicial acceptance of an inconsistent position in a later proceeding would create "the perception that either the first or the second court was misled"... 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 "accepted," the party's 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 "seeks to prevent the deliberate manipulation of the courts," and therefore should not apply "when a party's prior position was based on inadvertence or mistake" (Ibrahim at 1009, applying the New Hampshire factors to the government)

Notes