Legal Opinion

Harris v. Fortin

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided September 8, 2014No. 71649-2-IPublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtTrickey, J.

¶1 The doctrine of judicial estoppel prevents a party from asserting a particular position in a judicial proceeding and later taking a clearly inconsistent position in order to gain an advantage. Here, throughout their bankruptcy proceedings, appellants maintained that a promissory note, on which respondent agreed to pay them a principal amount of $400,000.00, had no value and was uncollectable. Less than a year later, appellants sued respondent in state court to recover the amount owed on that same promissory note. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. New Hampshire v. MaineSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  2. Anfinson v. FedEx Ground Package System, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2012
  3. Arkison v. Ethan Allen, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2007
  4. Arkison v. Ethan Allen, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 2007
  5. Bartley-Williams v. KendallCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Taylor v. BellCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
  2. Benjamin C. Arp, Appellant, v. James H. Riley Et Al., RespondentsCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2015
  3. John A. Urbick, V The Spencer Law Firm, LlcCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2016
  4. Great Floors, Llc v. Wholesale Floors, LlcCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2017
  5. Mcclincy Brothers Floor Coverings Inc. v. Eric ZubelCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2019

1 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