State v. Duncan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he doctrine [of judicial estoppel] “prohibits a party who has successfully and unequivocally asserted a position in one proceeding from asserting an inconsistent position in a subsequent proceeding.” It is a “common sense” rule, designed to protect the integrity of the judicial process by preventing deliberately inconsistent — and potentially misleading — assertions from being successfully urged in succeeding tribunals. The doctrine is properly limited in its application to cases involving privity with, or prejudice to, the party invoking the doctrine. Another fundamental feature of the doctrine is the requirement of proof that the inconsistent position has been successfully asserted in the prior tribunal. Without such proof, “application of the rule is unwarranted because no risk of inconsistent, misleading results exists.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Winnebago Industries, Inc. v. Haverly

2. “party who has, with knowledge of the facts, assumed a particular position in judicial proceedings is estopped to assume a position inconsistent therewith to the prejudice of the adverse party.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Shari Kinseth and Ricky Kinseth, Coexecutors of the Estate of Larry Kinseth, and Shari Kinseth Individually v. Weil-McLain and State of Iowa ex rel. Civil Reparations Trust Fund