Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

10-3462 Walton v. Bayer Corp.

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//May 23, 2011//

10-3462 Walton v. Bayer Corp.

By: WISCONSIN LAW JOURNAL STAFF//May 23, 2011//

Listen to this article

Civil Procedure
Judicial estoppel

The doctrine of judicial estoppel is not limited to successive suits.

“[W]hile judicial estoppel is usually understood to require that the first litigation have been a separate lawsuit that ended in a judgment or settlement, McNamara v. City of Chicago, 138 F.3d 1219, 1225 (7th Cir. 1998), in this case had the plaintiff prevailed the sequel would have been the transfer of an existing lawsuit to another court rather than the filing of a brand-new suit. But that should make no difference to the applicability of the doctrine. Ladd v. ITT Corp., 148 F.3d 753, 756 (7th Cir. 1998). Though ‘usually applied to successive suits, . . . it is not so limited.’ Continental Illinois Corp. v. Commissioner, 998 F.2d 513, 518 (7th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). Its purpose is to deter fraud in litigation, see, e.g., Carnegie v. Household Int’l, Inc., 376 F.3d 656, 660 (7th Cir. 2004), which is a good description of advancing a ground for relief in one stage of a lawsuit with the undisclosed intention of arguing against it in a later stage.”

Affirmed.

10-3462 Walton v. Bayer Corp.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, Herndon, J., Posner, J.

Full Text

Polls

Should Steven Avery be granted a new evidentiary hearing?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests