Vennerberg Farms, Inc. v. IGF Ins. Co.

29 Citing cases

  1. Tyson Foods v. Hedlund

    740 N.W.2d 192 (Iowa 2007)   Cited 35 times
    Stating that judicial acceptance occurs when the inconsistent position "was material to the holding in the prior litigation"

    Id. at 573. We first engaged in a comprehensive discussion of the doctrine of judicial estoppel in Vennerberg Farms, Inc. v. IGF Insurance Co., 405 N.W.2d 810 (Iowa 1987). Id. at 814 (observing that "[t]he rule has been sparingly applied in other jurisdictions and only alluded to in our own"). There, we observed that judicial estoppel is a "commonsense doctrine" that "prohibits a party who has successfully and unequivocally asserted a position in one proceeding from asserting an inconsistent position in a subsequent proceeding."

  2. General Casualty Ins. Co. v. Penn-Co Construction, Inc.

    No. C03-2031-MWB (N.D. Iowa Mar. 2, 2005)   Cited 3 times

    The doctrine [of judicial estoppel] `prohibits a party who has successfully and unequivocally asserted a position in one proceeding from asserting an inconsistent position in a subsequent proceeding.'" Wilson v. Liberty Mut. Group, 666 N.W.2d 163, 166 (Iowa 2003) (quoting Vennerberg Farms, Inc. v. IGF Ins. Co., 405 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Iowa 1987)); see Duder v. Shanks, 689 N.W.2d 214, 220 (Iowa 2004) (same); State v. Jacobs, 607 N.W.2d 679, 687 (Iowa 2000) (same). The doctrine is a rule based on a common sense rule "designed to protect the integrity of the judicial process by preventing deliberately inconsistent — and potentially misleading — assertions from being successfully urged in succeeding tribunals."

  3. Kinseth v. Weil-McLain

    913 N.W.2d 55 (Iowa 2018)   Cited 26 times
    Clarifying that Iowa law does not permit punitive damages where a defendant who had no specific knowledge of a product's harmful defect failed to act, even if industry peers had such knowledge

    The doctrine aims "to protect the integrity of the judicial process by preventing intentional inconsistency." Vennerberg Farms, Inc. v. IGF Ins. , 405 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Iowa 1987). Further, it "addresses the incongruity of allowing a party to assert a position in one tribunal and the opposite in another, thereby creating the perception that at least one court has been misled."

  4. Schettler v. Dist. Ct. for Carroll Cty

    509 N.W.2d 459 (Iowa 1993)   Cited 38 times
    Noting that doctrine does not apply absent judicial acceptance of inconsistent position

    Elmer and SSFI cite two cases that they claim would have made Polking realize, had he read them, that he could not assert an inconsistent position in a subsequent proceeding. Those cases are Graber v. Iowa Dist. Court, 410 N.W.2d 224 (Iowa 1987) and Vennerberg Farms, Inc. v. IGF Ins. Co., 405 N.W.2d 810 (Iowa 1987). We agree with the district court and Polking that these two cases do not support Elmer's and SSFI's contention that the fraud action was not warranted by existing law.

  5. Pella Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

    246 F. Supp. 3d 1247 (S.D. Iowa 2017)

    Judicial estoppel is a " ‘commonsense doctrine’ that ‘prohibits a party who has successfully and unequivocally asserted a position in one proceeding from asserting an inconsistent position in a subsequent proceeding.’ " Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Hedlund , 740 N.W.2d 192, 196 (Iowa 2007) (quoting Vennerberg Farms, Inc. v. IGF Ins. Co. , 405 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Iowa 1987) ). "The doctrine is designed to protect the integrity of the judicial process by preventing intentional inconsistency. It addresses the incongruity of allowing a party to assert a position in one tribunal and the opposite in another, thereby creating the perception that at least one court has been misled." Vennerberg Farms , 405 N.W.2d at 814.

  6. J. Lloyd Int'l, Inc. v. Super Wings Int'l, Ltd.

    No. 15-CV-74-LRR (N.D. Iowa Dec. 22, 2016)   Cited 1 times
    Finding the witness's thirty-year old conviction was inadmissible because, although the witness's credibility was at issue, the conviction's probative value was substantially outweighed by the prejudicial effect

    New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 750 (2001) (alteration omitted) (quoting Allen v. Zurich Ins. Co., 667 F.2d 1162, 1166 (4th Cir. 1982)). However, Iowa courts have recognized that: (1) the positions taken must be inconsistent to a degree that creates "the perception that at least one court has been misled," Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Hedlund, 740 N.W.2d 192, 196 (Iowa 2007) (quoting Vennerberg Farms, Inc. v. IGF Insurance Co., 405 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Iowa 1987)); (2) there must have been "judicial acceptance of the inconsistent position" in the prior proceeding, Id. (quoting Vennerberg Farms, 405 N.W.2d at 814); and (3) the party invoking the doctrine must be prejudiced by its opponent's assertion of the inconsistent positions, Winnebago Indus., 727 N.W.2d at 573 (quoting Wilson v. Liberty Mut. Grp., 666 N.W.2d 163, 166 (Iowa 2003)). Accord New Hampshire, 532 U.S. at 750-51.

  7. J. Lloyd Int'l, Inc. v. Super Wings Int'l, Ltd.

    No. 15-CV-74-LRR (N.D. Iowa Feb. 8, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    (quoting Winnebago Indus., Inc. v. Haverly, 727 N.W.2d 567, 573 (Iowa 2006)); Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Hedlund, 740 N.W.2d 192, 196 (Iowa 2007) ("[J]udicial estoppel is a 'commonsense doctrine' that 'prohibits a party who has successfully and unequivocally asserted a position in one proceeding from asserting an inconsistent position in a subsequent proceeding.'"(quoting Vennerberg Farms, Inc. v. IGF Ins. Co., 405 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Iowa 1987))). Although

  8. Spencer v. Annett Holdings, Inc.

    905 F. Supp. 2d 953 (S.D. Iowa 2012)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses

    The Iowa Supreme Court has described it as a “commonsense doctrine” that “prohibits a party who has successfully and unequivocally asserted a position in one proceeding from asserting an inconsistent position in a subsequent proceeding.” Vennerberg Farms v. IGF Ins. Co., 405 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Iowa 1987). Success is generally a pre-requisite for applying the doctrine because “[a]bsent judicial acceptance of the inconsistent position, application of the rule is unwarranted because no risk of inconsistent, misleading results exists.”

  9. Godfrey v. State

    962 N.W.2d 84 (Iowa 2021)   Cited 16 times

    The doctrine is "designed to protect the integrity of the judicial process." Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Hedlund , 740 N.W.2d 192, 196 (Iowa 2007) (quoting Vennerberg Farms, Inc. v. IGF Ins. , 405 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Iowa 1987) ). In Winnebago Industries, Inc. v. Haverly , we discussed judicial estoppel at length, finding that it barred an employer from taking inconsistent positions at different stages of the same proceeding.

  10. Wilson v. Liberty Mut. Group

    666 N.W.2d 163 (Iowa 2003)   Cited 47 times
    In Wilson v. Liberty Mutual Group, 666 N.W.2d 163 (Iowa 2003), the court held that a workers' compensation claimant who had stipulated to the existence of a "bona fide dispute" in the arbitration hearing before the Deputy Commissioner was precluded from asserting that the workers' compensation carrier had no reasonable basis to deny him benefits in a bad faith suit, id. at 167.

    The doctrine "prohibits a party who has successfully and unequivocally asserted a position in one proceeding from asserting an inconsistent position in a subsequent proceeding." Vennerberg Farms, Inc. v. IGF Ins. Co., 405 N.W.2d 810, 814 (Iowa 1987). It is a "common sense" rule, designed to protect the integrity of the judicial process by preventing deliberately inconsistent-and potentially misleading-assertions from being successfully urged in succeeding tribunals. Id. The doctrine is properly limited in its application to cases involving privity with, or prejudice to, the party invoking the doctrine.