164 N.C. App. 183 - Wiley v. United Parcel Service, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably 169 N.C. App. 187 - Price v. Price (2005), 173 N.C. App. 218 - Whitings v. Wolfson Casing Corp. (2005)
32 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 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on State of New Hampshire v. State of Maine · Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission · 130 N.C. App. 729 - Bruce-Terminix Company v. Zurich Ins. Co. · Whitacre Partnership v. Biosignia, Inc. · 145 N.C. App. 383 - Swain v. Elfland
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, a party’s subsequent 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 might pose a threat to judicial integrity by leading to inconsistent court determinations or the perception that either the first or the second court was misled. Third, courts consider 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.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“In Whitacre P’ship[ v. Biosignia, Inc., 358 N.C. 1, 28 , 591 S.E.2d 870, 888 (2004)], the North Carolina Supreme Court adopted the test for judicial estoppel set forth by the United States Supreme Court in New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 , 149 L. Ed. 2d 968 , reh’g denied, 533 U.S. 968 , 150 L. Ed. 2d 793 (2001). Id. While noting that “the circumstances under which judicial estoppel may appropriately be invoked are probably not reducible to any general formulation of principle,” [i]d. (citation omitted), the Court identified three factors used to determine if the doctrine should apply. Id. The first factor, and the only factor that is an essential element which must be present for judicial estoppel to apply, id. at 28 n.7, 591 S.E.2d at 888 n.7, is that a “party’s subsequent position ‘must be clearly inconsistent with its earlier position.’ ” Id. at 29 , 591 S.E.2d 888 (internal citations omitted). Second, the court should “inquire whether the party has succeeded in persuading a court to accept that party’s earlier position.” Id. at 29 , 591 S.E.2d at 889. Third, the court should inquire “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.” Id. (citation omitted). Judicial estoppel is an “equitable doctrine invoked by a court at its discretion.” Id. (citation omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“34. Defendants’ decision to terminate [Plaintiffs] employment was in retaliation for his making complaints and providing information with regard .to an ongoing workplace situation with regard to Occupational Safety and Health issues affecting nuclear power facilities in North Carolina operated by Defendants, including but not limited to the McGuire Nuclear Facility. 35. By communicating with his supervisors on numerous occasions concerning safety and health and training issues, and with the Duke Ethics Hotline, [Plaintiff] exercised his rights as listed under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 95-241 (a).”
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.