Sandra Slater v. United States Steel Corporation
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
1Per curiam
The equitable doctrine of judicial estop-pel, also known as the doctrine of preclusion of inconsistent positions, “precludes a party from asserting a ... position that contradicts or is inconsistent with a prior position taken by the same party.” 18 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 131.13[6][a] (3d ed.2015). The doctrine differs from the doctrines of issue and claim preclusion in that the policy animating it “is not [primarily] concerned with preserving the finality of judgments” but is concerned, instead, with “the orderly administration of justice and regard for the…
2Cases cited43 opinions
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Link v. Wabash RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Grogan v. GarnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
- New Hampshire v. MaineSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Ricci v. DeStefanoSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Sandra Slater v. United Steel CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2017
- Jenny Smith v. Haynes & Haynes P.C.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019
- United States v. GrahamCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2011
- Jacqueline Lewis v. City of Union City, GeorgiaCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2017
- D’antignac v. Deere & CompanyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2017
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.