Legal Document

532 U.S. 742121 S.Ct. 1808149 L.Ed.2d 968 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of United States Reports. Readers are requested notify Reporter Decisions, Supreme Court States, Washington, D. C. 20543, any typographical or other errors, order that corrections may be made goes press.STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, PLAINTIFFv.STATE MAINE No. 130, Orig. SUPREME COURT THE UNITED STATES Argued April 16, 2001Decided May 29, 2001 Syllabus New Hampshire and Maine share a border runs from northwest southeast. At border's southeastern end, Hampshire's easternmost point meets Maine's southernmost point. The boundary this region follows Piscataqua River eastward into Portsmouth Harbor and, there, extends southeasterly direction sea. In 1977, dispute between two over lobster fishing rights, entered consent judgment setting precise location States' "lateral marine boundary," i.e., waters off coast, closing line five miles seaward. v. Maine, 426 363; 434 1, 2. was fixed by 1740 decree King George II at "Middle River." See U.S., 366-367. course litigation, proposed which they agreed, inter alia, descriptive words River" refer middle River's main navigable channel. Rejecting Special Master's view quoted mean geographic river, accepted interpretation directed entry decree. Id., 369-370. final decree, defined as "the channel navigation 1977 only lateral not inland boundary. 2000, brought original action against claiming on basis historical records river along shore entire all belong Hampshire. has filed motion dismiss, urging earlier proceedings bar complaint. Held: Judicial estoppel bars asserting shore. Pp. 5-13. (a) doctrine distinct res judicata doctrines claim issue preclusion. Under judicial doctrine, where party assumes certain position legal proceeding, succeeds maintaining position, he thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume contrary especially if it prejudice who acquiesced formerly taken him. Davis Wakelee, 156 680, 689. purpose protect integrity process prohibiting parties deliberately changing positions according exigencies moment. Courts recognized circumstances under appropriately invoked reducible general formulation. Nevertheless, several factors typically inform decision whether apply particular case: First, party's later must clearly inconsistent with its position. Second, courts regularly inquire succeeded persuading court accept so acceptance an proceeding would create perception either first second misled. Third, ask seeking assert derive unfair advantage impose detriment opposing estopped. enumerating these factors, does establish inflexible prerequisites exhaustive formula for determining applicability estoppel. Additional considerations doctrine's application specific factual contexts. 5-8. (b) Considerations equity persuade appropriate case. during 1970's litigation river. Either construction located somewhere than River. Moreover, record makes clear agreement means channel, benefited interpretation. Notably, their joint represented "in best interest each State." Were latest view, risk determinations become reality. cannot interpret different things same without undermining process. 8-9. (c) rejects various arguments State urged oral argument arbitrary based parties' administrative convenience. But foreclosed Court's determination wholly permissible resolution controversy both facts law, 368-369. rejected dissenters' interpreted middle-of-the-river language "by agreements convenience" accordance principles," id., 369. contention searching inquiry what meant refuted pleadings case independent nothing suggests agreed upon relevant evidence, ibid. Nor can said lacked opportunity incentive locate present complaint, relies materials were no less available today. And had every reason consult those materials: A running resulted substantial amount additional territory 9-11. (d) Also unavailing reliance recognition part precludes ordinarily applied Illinois ex rel. Gordon Campbell, 329 362, compromise governmental enforcing law. Cf. Heckler Community Health Services Crawford Cty., Inc., 467 51, 60. shift government's results change public policy, cf. Commissioner Sunnen, 333 591, 601, essential prior judgment, Montana 440 147, 159. Instead, owes full measure respect. unable discern policy allowing construe differently today did 25 years ago. 11-13. Motion dismiss complaint granted. ON MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT Ginsburg, J., delivered Court, Members joined, except Souter, took consideration Opinion Justice Ginsburg Court. 1 lies end Maine. begins headwaters Salmon Falls seaward (also known Harbor). On March 6, ground proceedings-a Court-definitively river's navigation. 2 Because Hampshire, reservation navigation, we conclude estopped now Accordingly, grant 3 * border, Twenty-five ago, fixing coast Gosport Isles Shoals. 363 (1976); (1977). concerns Maine-New stretch River, mouth westward Falls. (A map appears appendix opinion.) 4 contest boundary, summarized history interstate region. said, "was fact England" follows: " 'That Dividing Line shall pass up thro Mouth Harbour Middle ... . Shoals run Islands Sea Southerly Side... .' 366 (quoting decree). 5 1976, "expressly agree[d] area." 367 (internal quotation marks omitted). "Their quarrel 'Mouth River,' 'Middle Harbour' within contemplation decree." Ibid. meaning terms delineating Report Master, O. T. 1975, 64 Orig., pp. 32-49 (hereinafter Report). particular, northern required marking [Piscataqua] crosses Harbor. 43. 6 Entry Judgment By Consent Plaintiff Defendant 1973, p. Judgment). reviewing pertinent history, concluded intended 41. determined, however, "reasonably invest[ed] imprecise terms" definition "wholly evidence." basis, declined adopt 7 42-43 ("For purposes dispute, unnecessary lay out fully proceeds upriver ."). instant action, contends "run[s] low water mark shore," Complaint 49, asserts sovereignty Harbor, including Naval Shipyard Seavey Island harbor just south Kittery, 34.* Relying records, urges River," used 1740, denotes branch mid-channel Brief Opposition Dismiss 12-16, exercised sole jurisdiction shipping military activities decades after 17-19, nn. 35-38. 8 While disagreeing understanding see 9-14, 18-19 (compiling evidence continually shipyard 1700's day), primarily divided navigation-a division places jurisdiction. Those proceedings, principles preclusion well 9 We pretermit competing claims vel non commonly called Claim generally refers effect foreclosing successive very claim, relitigation raises issues suit. Issue law actually litigated resolved valid arises claim. Restatement (Second) Judgments 17, 27, 148, 250 (1980); Shapiro, Civil Procedure: Preclusion Actions 32, 46 (2001). unusual presents, discrete estoppel, fits controversy. hold, equitably barred asserting-contrary litigation-that 10 "[W]here him." 689 (1895). rule, "generally prevents prevailing one phase then relying contradictory prevail another phase." Pegram Herdrich, 530 211, 227, n. (2000); 18 Moore's Federal Practice 134.30, 134-62 (3d ed. 2000) ("The previous proceeding"); Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Procedure 4477, 782 (1981) ("absent good explanation, should allowed gain theory, seek pursuing incompatible theory") Wright). 11 Although occasion discuss elaborately, uniformly "to process," Edwards Aetna Life Ins. Co., 690 F.2d 595, 598 (CA6 1982), "prohibiting moment," McCaskey, F.3d 368, 378 (CA5 1993). re Cassidy, 892 637, 641 (CA7 1990) ("Judicial prevent perversion process."); Allen Zurich 667 1162, 1166 (CA4 1982) (judicial "protect[s] process"); Scarano Central R. 203 510, 513 (CA3 1953) "playing 'fast loose courts' Stretch Watson, N. J. Super. 456, 469, 69 2d 596, 603 (1949))). rule "improper use machinery," Konstantinidis Chen, 626 933, 938 (CADC 1980), "is equitable discretion," Russell Rolfs, 893 1033, 1037 (CA9 (citation 12 observed "[t]he probably formulation principle," Allen, F.2d, 1166; accord Lowery Stovall, 92 219, 223 1996); Patriot Cinemas, Inc. General Cinema Corp., 834 208, 212 (CA1 1987). "clearly inconsistent" Hook, 195 299, 306 1999); Coastal Plains, 179 197, 206 Hossaini Western Mo. Medical Center, 140 1140, 1143 (CA8 1998); Maharaj Bankamerica 128 94, 98 (CA2 1997). misled," Edwards, 599. Absent success introduces "risk determinations," I. Constr. 944 253, 259 1991), thus poses little threat integrity. F.3d, 306; Maharaj, 98; Konstantinidis, 939. third Davis, 689; Philadelphia, W., B. Co. Howard, 13 How. 307, 335-337 (1852); Scarano, forbids "intentional self-contradiction obtaining advantage"); also Wright 782. do case, observe above firmly tip balance equities favor barring 14 litigation. As mentioned above, supra, 3-4, "necessary" endpoint offered interpretations proceeding-first agreeing Master Both constructions 15 true, preferred report. Exceptions Plaintiff's Exceptions) ("the more favorable [New Hampshire] recommended decree"). sufficiently garner approval. "compromised favor" 24, "compromise" enabled settle 24-25, beneficial States. 1. representation, 16 argument, "an convenience parties." Tr. Oral Arg. 37. To extent implies settled endorsement proposes law," Three dissenting Justices principles." 371 (White, dissenting, joined Blackmun Stevens, JJ.). otherwise, noting involved "[n]othing remotely resembling 'arbitral' rather 'judicial' functions," definitions give [the 1740] decree," ibid., "[did] fall category reject consistent our Art. III function duty," 17 "a ['Middle River'] meant." 39. According knows about question resist "when inadvertence mistake." John S. Clark Faggert Frieden, P. C., 65 26, 29 1995); Corey, 829, 836 1989); unpersuaded, Hamsphire's fairly regarded product mistake. show engage inquiry" Reply 3-9 (examining boundaries international leading Council, precedents Court). None cited suggested fact, attempting place acknowledged agents understood King's "adjudg[e] half to" portion Massachusetts (emphasis original) H. Papers, XIX, 596-597); intention participating [1740 decree] 'geographic middle' boundary." original)). addition, independently determined "there suggest 19 materials-primarily official documents events colonial postcolonial periods, 12-19-that ago placed terminus much closer "result[ing] hundreds thousands acres being Maine," 48 (rebuttal Maine). Tellingly, time importance placing close possible. middle, insisted using banks tide elevations (as proposed), key reference points-a methodology 350 yards 3. 20 short, us Having convinced having interpretation, expense. Construction, 259, 21 Finally, notwithstanding equities, points "ordinarily states," 369 (1946). Of course, "broad make important allow might seem inappropriate matter merely private interests." 784. 60 (1984) ("When Government enforce conduct given rise citizenry whole obedience undermined. It litigant."). result policy," Owens, 54 271, 275 601 (1948) (collateral statutory provisions Treasury regulations changed proceeding), 159 (1979) ("changes will render collateral inapplicable subsequent raising issues"). 22 What 1976 concerning advances new own laws borders, but adjust itself. Given countervailing interes[t] 784, gives prerogative 23 24 For reasons stated, ordered. 26 Souter 27 NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE. NOTES: recent steps portions lease land facilities developers. 34. development lands.

Classification Label: 10