using one argument and then relying upon a contradictory argument to prevail in another phase.” In re Zachary G., 159 N.H. 146, 152 (2009) (quotation omitted). “The general function of judicial estoppel is to prevent abuse of the judicial process, resulting in an affront to the integrity of the courts.” Pike v. Mullikin, 158 N.H. 267, 270 (2009) (quotation omitted). While the circumstances under which judicial estoppel may be invoked vary, three factors typically inform the doctrine’s application: (1) whether the party’s later position is clearly inconsistent with the party’s earlier position; (2) whether the earlier position was accepted by the court; and (8) whether the party seeking to assert a later inconsistent position would derive an unfair advantage or N.H. 813, 849 (2005) (<HOLDING>). Had the State challenged whether Willey was a
recognizing action for tortious interference with prospective advantage holding that the plaintiff who prevailed in an ipra enforcement action was entitled to an award of damages fees and costs holding that estoppel prevents a party who secured a judgment in his favor by virtue of assuming a given position in a prior legal proceeding from assuming an inconsistent position in a later action recognizing principle that as between common parties a position taken in an earlier judicial proceeding estops a litigant from adopting an inconsistent position in a later proceeding holding that defendant would derive an unfair advantage by taking a factual position inconsistent with one taken in an earlier action in which defendant prevailed