- 42 -
The doctrine of judicial estoppel focuses on the
relationship between a party and the courts, and it seeks to
protect the integrity of the judicial process by preventing a
party from successfully asserting one position before a court and
thereafter asserting a completely contradictory position before
the same or another court merely because it is now in that
party’s interest to do so. Edwards v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., supra
at 599; Huddleston v. Commissioner, supra at 26. Whether or not
to apply the doctrine is within the court’s sound discretion. It
should be applied with caution in order “to avoid impinging on
the truth-seeking function of the court because the doctrine
precludes a contradictory position without examining the truth of
either statement.” Daugharty v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-
349 (quoting Teledyne Indus., Inc. v. NLRB, 911 F.2d 1214, 1218
(6th Cir. 1990)).
Because judicial estoppel focuses primarily on the
relationship between a party and the courts, it is
distinguishable from equitable estoppel, which focuses primarily
on the relationship between the parties themselves. Teledyne
Indus., Inc. v. NLRB, supra at 1219-1220. Judicial estoppel
generally requires acceptance by a court of the prior position
and does not require privity or detrimental reliance of the party
seeking to invoke the doctrine. Id.; Huddleston v. Commissioner,
Page: Previous 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011