20 Cited authorities

New Hampshire v. Maine
532 U.S. 742 (2001) Cited 4,537 times 17 Legal Analyses
Holding that under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, “New Hampshire is equitably barred from asserting—contrary to its position in the 1970's litigation—that the inland Piscataqua River boundary runs along the Maine shore”
Doe v. Allied-Signal, Inc.
985 F.2d 908 (7th Cir. 1993) Cited 732 times
Holding that first action for negligent failure to keep plaintiff safe from rape at workplace was distinct from subsequent action based on employer's misrepresentation of plaintiff's employment status because facts forming basis of second action arose from different transaction and damages asserted in second action did not accrue until first action ended
McMillan v. Collection Professionals Inc.
455 F.3d 754 (7th Cir. 2006) Cited 358 times
Holding that a plaintiff's claims under §§ 1692e and 1692f based on the same collection letter should not be dismissed
Matter of Cassidy
892 F.2d 637 (7th Cir. 1990) Cited 332 times
Holding that a party that, on appeal, prevailed on a subsidiary question but lost the appeal as a whole was judicially estopped
Polymer Technologies, Inc. v. Bridwell
103 F.3d 970 (Fed. Cir. 1996) Cited 194 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding failure to bring suit against other potential infringers may be relevant to an analysis of irreparable harm if it indicates a willingness to accept royalty-type damages in lieu of market exclusivity
Levinson v. U.S.
969 F.2d 260 (7th Cir. 1992) Cited 163 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the bankruptcy court was best suited to determine questions underlying nondischargeability
Scarano v. Central R. Co. of New Jersey
203 F.2d 510 (3d Cir. 1953) Cited 511 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding plaintiff could not obtain damages from employer for a work-related injury on the grounds that he was incapacitated and then bring a separate action for reinstatement under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement
Davis v. Wakelee
156 U.S. 680 (1895) Cited 624 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "where a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume a contrary position"
U.S. v. Christian
342 F.3d 744 (7th Cir. 2003) Cited 72 times
Holding that judicially estopping the government from charging the appellant with a felony because his co-defendants were charged with misdemeanors for the same incident would “obliterate the usefulness of plea agreements”
Spiegel v. Continental Illinois Nat. Bank
790 F.2d 638 (7th Cir. 1986) Cited 114 times
Holding that res judicata does not bar new action based on alleged acts occurring after the filing of the first law suit
Section 271 - Infringement of patent
35 U.S.C. § 271 Cited 6,031 times 1045 Legal Analyses
Holding that testing is a "use"

Black & Decker Inc. et al v. Robert Bosch Tool Corporation

20 Cited authorities

Holding that under the doctrine of judicial estoppel, “New Hampshire is equitably barred from asserting—contrary to its position in the 1970's litigation—that the inland Piscataqua River boundary runs along the Maine shore”

Holding that a plaintiff's claims under §§ 1692e and 1692f based on the same collection letter should not be dismissed

Holding that a party that, on appeal, prevailed on a subsidiary question but lost the appeal as a whole was judicially estopped

Holding failure to bring suit against other potential infringers may be relevant to an analysis of irreparable harm if it indicates a willingness to accept royalty-type damages in lieu of market exclusivity

Holding that the bankruptcy court was best suited to determine questions underlying nondischargeability

Holding plaintiff could not obtain damages from employer for a work-related injury on the grounds that he was incapacitated and then bring a separate action for reinstatement under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement

Holding that "where a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding, and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter, simply because his interests have changed, assume a contrary position"

Holding that judicially estopping the government from charging the appellant with a felony because his co-defendants were charged with misdemeanors for the same incident would “obliterate the usefulness of plea agreements”

Holding that res judicata does not bar new action based on alleged acts occurring after the filing of the first law suit

Holding that testing is a "use"