Division I: Judicial Estoppel Requires Application of the Contrary Position by the First Court (Law Nerds Only)
There’s a doctrine called judicial estoppel. If one court finds something, you can’t run to another court for shot at the apple number 2. There’s also a rule that allows you to take seemingly contrary positions. Obviously you can’t win on them, but you can take them. Here, Taylor took position 1 in Idaho, and took Position 2 in Washington. Idaho rejected position 1, but Position 2 was still in play.
As for the details…a whole bunch of messy stock stuff. But the real nice part out of this has to do with judicial estoppel. The biggest factor in this case was the previous position can’t have misled the prior court. In other words, the prior court had to have accepted your position and used that as a basis for its ruling. Here, the court in Idaho didn’t accept it and therefore wasn’t misled.
Confused? Yup, not an easy doctrine to apply.