JOSEPHINE E. LEE, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE AND SOLE DEVISEE OF D. C. LEE, DECEASED, ET AL.,
v.
M. C. FOWLER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court affirmed a decree against Josephine E. Lee based on the principle of judicial estoppel, holding that a party cannot assume inconsistent positions in successive appeals involving the same parties and subject matter.
A party is estopped from assuming an inconsistent position toward the same parties and subject matter in a later phase of litigation or on a subsequent appeal after having assumed a particular theory on a former appeal that resulted in an appellate adjudication.
“It is the general rule that where a party to a suit has assumed an attitude on a former appeal, and has carried his case to an appellate adjudication on a particular theory asserted by the record on that appeal, that he is estopped to assume in a pleading filed in a later phase of that same case, or on another appeal, any other or inconsistent position toward the same parties and subject matter.”
Establishes the core doctrine of judicial estoppel applied in this case
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involved a dispute between Josephine E. Lee (as executrix of D. C. Lee's estate) and M. C. Fowler. The case had previously been appealed and…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Law Of The Case Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
The law of this case is enunciated in Fowler v. Lee, 106 Fla. 712, 143 Sou. 613.
In Palm Beach County v. Palm Beach Estates, 110 Fla. 77, 148 Sou. 544, we said:
“It is the general rule that where a party to a suit has assumed an attitude on a former appeal, and has carried his-case to an appellate adjudication on a particular theory asserted by the record on that appeal, that he is estopped to assume in a pleading filed in a later phase of that same case,, or on another appeal, any other or inconsistent position toward the same parties and subject matter. See Palm Beach Estates v. Croker, 106 Fla. 617, 143 Sou. Rep. 792; Taylor v. Crook, 136 Ala. 354, 34 Sou. Rep. 905; 96 A. S. R. 26; Note 3, Eng. Rul. Cases 327; Mark v. Hyatt, 135 N. Y. 306; 31 N. E. Rep. 1099, 18 L. R. A. 275; Scanlon v. Walshe, 81 Md. 118, 31 Atl. Rep. 494, 48 A. S. R. 488; Norfolk & O. V. Ry. Co. v. Consolidated Turnpike Co., 111 Va. 131, 68 S. E. Rep. 346, Ann. Cas. 1912-A 239; Holley v. Young, 68 Me. 215, 28 Am. Rep. 40.
The foregoing is the doctrine of estoppel against inconsistent positions in judicial proceedings, not the doctrine of res adjudicata. It is based upon the theory that where a party has made a record of his own case upon which record, he has sought and secured from a court a final judicial order or judgment based on the allegation made by him that the facts of his case as alleged by him in his own pleadings are true, which allegations as to the issuable facts have been, likewise accepted by the opposite party as true, for the purpose of having rendered by the Court its final decision or judgment on such record, that thereafter each of the -parties, is estopped to alter his position on the record to the prejudice of an adverse party, where the parties and the subject matter involved in the litigation remain the same.”
*431The decree appealed from conforms' to the opinion and judgment entered by this Court in disposing of the cause on former appeal supra.
The decree should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, P. J., and Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Davis, C. J., and Terrell, J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Palm Beach Ests. v. Bula E. Croker, 106 Fla. 617 (Fla. 1932)
- Palm Beach Co. v. Palm Beach Ests., 110 Fla. 77 (Fla. 1933)
- Fowler v. Lee, 106 Fla. 712 (Fla. 1932)