Timothy Dean Strong - Page 7

                                        - 7 -                                         
          states that he did not advise Strong to omit any cash on hand               
          during the bankruptcy proceeding.  If that is so, respondent                
          argues that Strong cannot support his assertion of erroneous                
          legal advice as a defense to judicial estoppel.  Respondent                 
          maintains that, because Strong and the bankruptcy attorney differ           
          as to whether Strong was advised to omit the cash hoard, there              
          remains an unresolved material issue of fact which renders                  
          summary judgment inappropriate.                                             
               Judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine that prevents               
          parties in subsequent judicial proceedings from asserting                   
          positions contradictory to those they previously have                       
          affirmatively persuaded a court to accept.  Huddleston v.                   
          Commissioner, 100 T.C. 17, 26 (1993).  The doctrine of judicial             
          estoppel focuses on the relationship between a party and the                
          courts; it seeks to preserve the integrity of the judicial                  
          process by preventing a party from successfully asserting one               
          position before a court and thereafter asserting a contradictory            
          position before the same or another court merely because it is              
          now in that party’s interest to do so.  Id.  Such manipulation of           
          the judicial process by a party has been characterized by the               
          courts 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           

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011