- 21 -
contradictory position before the same or another court when it
is in that party's interest to do so. Edwards v. Aetna Life Ins.
Co., 690 F.2d 595, 599 (6th Cir. 1982); Huddleston v.
Commissioner, 100 T.C. 17, 26 (1993). Such manipulation of the
judicial process has been characterized as "cynical gamesmanship
* * * to suit an exigency of the moment", Teledyne Indus., Inc.
v. NLRB, 911 F.2d 1214, 1218 (6th Cir. 1990); "blowing hot and
cold", Allen v. Zurich Ins. Co., 667 F.2d 1162, 1167 n.3 (4th
Cir. 1982); and "playing fast and loose with the courts", Scarano
v. Central R.R., 203 F.2d 510, 513 (3d Cir. 1953).
In Huddleston v. Commissioner, supra at 28-29, this Court
held:
the doctrine of judicial estoppel is available in the
Tax Court to be used in appropriate cases * * * to
prevent parties from taking positions that are
inconsistent with those previously asserted by the
parties and accepted by courts and that would result in
inappropriate and prejudicial consequences to the
courts.[8]
We also explained:
Acceptance by a court does not mean that the party
being estopped prevailed in the prior proceeding with
8Federal standards govern the application of judicial
estoppel in Federal court. In Warda v. Commissioner, 15 F.3d
533, 538 n.4 (6th Cir. 1994), affg. T.C. Memo. 1992-43, the Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit explained: "This is because the
doctrine is designed to protect the integrity of judicial
institutions, and because the question (when presented in federal
court) primarily concerns federal interests."
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011