Legal Opinion

Sandra Slater v. United States Steel Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Decided February 24, 2016No. 12-15548PublishedCited by 10 opinions

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

  1. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
  2. Link v. Wabash RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
  3. Grogan v. GarnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. New Hampshire v. MaineSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  5. Ricci v. DeStefanoSupreme Court of the United States · 2009

38 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Sandra Slater v. United Steel CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2017
  2. Jenny Smith v. Haynes & Haynes P.C.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019
  3. United States v. GrahamCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2011
  4. Jacqueline Lewis v. City of Union City, GeorgiaCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2017
  5. D’antignac v. Deere & CompanyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2017

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API