What is the doctrine of judicial estoppel in civil litigation?

The doctrine of judicial estoppel is a policy used in civil litigation in California when a party has taken a particular position in a previous case that conflicts with their current position in a new case. This policy states that a party is prevented from presenting a court with a new position contrary to their old position in a previous case. This rule is meant to maintain the fairness and integrity of the judicial system. The doctrine of judicial estoppel works in two ways. First, it prevents one party from taking inconsistent positions on the same facts in different cases. For example, if one party argued in a previous case that a certain fact was true, then they cannot claim the opposite in a new case. Second, judicial estoppel prevents one party from relitigating matters that have already been decided in a prior case. For example, if the matter of who owns a piece of property was already decided in a prior case, then the same party cannot attempt to ask the court to re-examine the issue in a new case. Judicial estoppel does not prevent a party from arguing a different legal theory or claiming a new set of facts for the same issue. However, it does limit what claims and positions a party can take that are inconsistent with the ones taken in a prior case. This helps ensure that parties do not attempt to manipulate the judicial system and helps maintain the fairness of the judicial system.

Related FAQs

What is the doctrine of judicial estoppel in civil litigation?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts