Mungo v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
355 F.3d 969 · 2004
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably United States v. Foreman (2004), In Re Sandra Jane Frushour (2005)
16 federal appellate · 1 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
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · 141 Ill. 2d 281 - Quake Construction, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc. · In the Matter of Robert John Love, Debtor-Appellant · Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. · Levinson v. United States
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Judicial estoppel is inapplicable here because, contrary to [the attorney’s] suggestion, the position espoused by Mungo in this case is not ‘clearly inconsistent’ with the testimony she gave in the underlying state court divorce proceeding. [Citation.] Mungo’s position at trial in this case may be summed up as follows: she admits that she agreed to sign the settlement agreement but she contends that her willingness to do so was the product of [the attorney’s] undue pressure and inadequate legal advice. Mungo’s earlier testimony that she entered the settlement agreement freely and voluntarily is not clearly inconsistent with her current conviction that [the attorney] gave her bad legal advice and pressured her into accepting the agreement. Finally, *** it would make no sense to permit [the attorney] to invoke the doctrine of judicial estoppel to bar Mungo’s testimony because, assuming Mungo’s allegations are correct, [the attorney’s] bad legal advice and pressure convinced Mungo to give the testimony in the state court divorce proceeding in the first place. As the [lower] court noted, ‘it would hardly be appropriate for the attorney who gave that bad advice to say that because her client testified in accordance with that bad advice that her client is estopped from asserting that the advice [is] bad.’ ” Mungo, 355 E3d at 981-82.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under the clearly erroneous standard, if the bankruptcy court's factual findings are plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, a reviewing court may not reverse even if it would have weighed the evidence differently.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Arguments raised for the first time in connection with a motion for reconsideration ... are generally deemed to be waived.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.