Opinion ID: 725141
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Do the Inconsistent Positions Have to Be Taken in the Same Litigation?

Text: 17 Judicial estoppel is sometimes said to apply to preclude[ ] parties from taking inconsistent positions in the same litigation, Milgard, 902 F.2d at 716 (emphasis added), but our cases as well as those from other circuits have applied the doctrine in disregard of this supposed limitation. See, e.g., Russell, 893 F.2d at 1037; Astor, 910 F.2d at 1548 (stating that estoppel is even more appropriate where the incompatible statements have been made in two different cases, since [i]nconsistent positions in different suits are much harder to justify than inconsistent pleading within one suit); Kale, 985 F.2d at 362; Patriot Cinemas, Inc. v. General Cinema Corp., 834 F.2d 208, 212 (1st Cir.1987); Allen, 667 F.2d at 1167. We now make it explicit that the doctrine of judicial estoppel is not confined to inconsistent positions taken in the same litigation.