142 Md. App. 399 - Gordon v. Posner’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably 147 Md. App. 350 - Turner v. Turner (2002), 176 Md. App. 672 - Mona v. Mona Electric Group, Inc. (2007)
35 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 2002 · 26 U.S.C. § 2041 · 26 U.S.C. § 2056 · 26 U.S.C. § 6075 · 26 U.S.C. § 6151 · 26 U.S.C. § 6324 · 26 U.S.C. § 6402 · 26 U.S.C. § 6601
Relies on State of New Hampshire v. State of Maine · I. W. Berman Properties v. Porter Bros. · Goodwich v. Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Inc. · Sedlack v. Braswell Services Group, Inc. · Adams v. Manown
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Sjeveral factors typically inform the decision whether to apply the doctrine in a particular case: 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.” Absent success in a prior proceeding, a party’s later inconsistent position introduces no “risk of inconsistent court determinations,” and thus poses little threat to judicial integrity. 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.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““ ‘If parties in court were permitted to assume inconsistent positions in the trial of their causes, the usefulness of courts of justice would in most cases be paralyzed; the coercive process of the law, available only between those who consented to its exercise, could be set at naught by all.... It may accordingly be laid down as a broad proposition that one who, without mistake induced by the opposite party, has taken a particular position deliberately in the course of litigation, must act consistently with it; one cannot play fast and loose.’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“There are two important reasons for estoppel. First, the doctrine of judicial estoppel “rests upon the principle that a litigant should not be permitted to lead a court to find a fact one way and then contend in another judicial proceeding that the same fact should be found otherwise.” . .. Judicial estoppel ensures “the ‘integrity of the judicial process’ by ‘prohibiting parties from deliberately changing positions according to the exigencies of the moment[.]’ ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.