157 Md. App. 40 - Middlebrook Tech, LLC v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 state decisions

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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Three factors ‘typically inform the decision whether to apply’ the doctrine of judicial estoppel in a particular case: whether the party’s later position is clearly inconsistent with its earlier position; whether the party succeeded in persuading the court in the earlier matter to accept its position, so that judicial acceptance of the contrary position in the later matter would create the perception that one of the courts had been misled; and whether the party seeking to assert the inconsistent position in the later matter would derive an unfair advantage, or would impose an unfair detriment on the other party, from being permitted to do so.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 158 Md. App. 1 - Chaney Enterprises Ltd. Partnership v. Windsor · 160 Md. App. 213 - Abrams v. American Tennis Courts, Inc.