Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.
Showing posts with label Estoppel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Estoppel. Show all posts
Third Circuit: Jane Doe v. Alan Hesketh
FRCP, Statutory Construction, Estoppel
Dismissal of claim without prejudice for lack of personal jurisdiction is appealable under the general appeals statute is appropriate where the plaintiff proceeds to file in other jurisdictions rather than amend the claim.
Statute allows recovery against violation of a predicate statute, even where full recovery has been made on a claim based in the predicate statute.
Victim is not in sufficient privity with government to estop a subsequent claim for damages based on an earlier restitution proceeding.
Jane Doe v. Alan Hesketh
Ninth Circuit: MK Hillside Partners v. CIR
Tax, Estoppel
Provision in statute giving tax court authority to consider a relevant statute of limitations for individual members of a partnership empowers the court to rule that the statute of limitations has not run at the partnership level.
No judicial estoppel, as the positions aren't inconsistent.
MK Hillside Partners v. CIR
Federal Circuit: Haggart v. US
Class actions, fees, estoppel
Where the government is the deft in a class action under a statutory cause of action that shifts fees, it has standing to contest the fee award.
As there is a policy interest in government candor, the government is not estopped from challenging fees that it now claims to have mistakenly not opposed an an earlier proceeding.
As the government's objection was to the mechanics of the disbursement, previous acquiescence to the plan does not judicially estop it from challenging it later. (In a footnote, a note that estoppel probably doesn't apply to FG.)
Abuse of discretion for lower court to approve settlement that relied on valuations of unassessed property without any disclosure of methodology of valuation.
Uncertainty as to the precise valuations of individual claims does not bar application of the common fund doctrine.
Opt-in classes can be subject to the common fund doctrine, and as there is no statutory requirement that the class members pay fees, a fee agreement is subject to equitable challenge.
Where equitable a fee-shifting statute displaces allocation of fees under the common fund doctrine. Circuit split flagged.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-5106.Opinion.1-6-2016.1.PDF
Where the government is the deft in a class action under a statutory cause of action that shifts fees, it has standing to contest the fee award.
As there is a policy interest in government candor, the government is not estopped from challenging fees that it now claims to have mistakenly not opposed an an earlier proceeding.
As the government's objection was to the mechanics of the disbursement, previous acquiescence to the plan does not judicially estop it from challenging it later. (In a footnote, a note that estoppel probably doesn't apply to FG.)
Abuse of discretion for lower court to approve settlement that relied on valuations of unassessed property without any disclosure of methodology of valuation.
Uncertainty as to the precise valuations of individual claims does not bar application of the common fund doctrine.
Opt-in classes can be subject to the common fund doctrine, and as there is no statutory requirement that the class members pay fees, a fee agreement is subject to equitable challenge.
Where equitable a fee-shifting statute displaces allocation of fees under the common fund doctrine. Circuit split flagged.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/14-5106.Opinion.1-6-2016.1.PDF
Fifth Circuit: Helen Allen, et al v. C & H Distributors, L.L.C.,
Judicial estoppel & tort.
A party is judicially estopped from bringing a post-petition injury claim if they do not notify the Trustee of the claim.
A subsequent filing of the suit by a Trustee is not governed by the statute of limitations.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-30330-CV0.pdf
A party is judicially estopped from bringing a post-petition injury claim if they do not notify the Trustee of the claim.
A subsequent filing of the suit by a Trustee is not governed by the statute of limitations.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-30330-CV0.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)