signed releases stating: I understand and agree that the liability of said insurance carrier is indefinite, uncertain and incapable of being satisfactorily established.... Id. at 555. Reasoning that a party’s allegations or admissions in a former proceeding under oath judicially estop the party from making contrary assertions in a subsequent proceeding, the court held that, as a matter of law, the claimants who signed and filed the releases could not thereafter claim a breach of duty by the carrier. Id. Although the court does not specifically state that the releases filed in the prior proceeding were sworn, we must presume they were sworn or judicial estoppel would not have applied. See Smith v. American Economy Ins. Co., 794 S.W.2d 574, 577 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 1990, writ denied) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 374, 116
holding judicial estoppel inapplicable because the claimant did not contend the carrier alleged or admitted in pleadings in a former proceeding under oath contrary to any assertion made in the present case holding that in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary a defendant is bound by statements made under oath during his plea colloquy holding that stipulation precluded litigant from asserting contrary position in subsequent case recognizing that pleadings in the underlying case are subject to judicial notice by an appellate court holding judicial estoppel inapplicable where record revealed no legal pleadings signed by the claimant under oath asserting a position contrary to the one asserted in the instant case