The defendants both moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Otis» position in this case was opposite of his position in the underlying case and the doctrine of judicial estoppel barred his negligence and 93A claims. (bwglaw.com)
Accordingly, the SJC held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in applying judicial estoppel. (bwglaw.com)
The SJC found that Otis» present case is barred by judicial estoppel because the claims are diametrically contrary to the position he took in his original suit against Cusick. (bwglaw.com)