McNamara v. Feist’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
8 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 2010 · 26 U.S.C. § 2011 · 26 U.S.C. § 2056
Relies on State of New Hampshire v. State of Maine · BTA Oil Producers v. MDU Resources Group, Inc. · Pfeifle v. Tanabe · In Re Estate of Eggl · In the Matter of Hirsch
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“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....””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Broten v. Broten“A waiver occurs when a person voluntarily and intentionally relinquishes a known right or privilege.”
1 later decision 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.