With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". decision whether to apply’ the doctrine of judicial estoppel in a particular case: whether the party’s later position is clearly inconsistent with its earlier position; whether the party succeeded in persuading the court in the earlier matter to accept its position, so that judicial acceptance of the contrary position in the later matter would create the perception that one of the courts had been misled; and whether the party seeking to assert the inconsistent position in the later matter would derive an unfair advantage, or would impose an unfair detriment on the other party, from being permitted to do so. Numerous courts in other jurisdictions have recognized the doctrine of judicial estoppel. See, e.g., Talavera v. School Bd. of Palm Beach County, 129 F.3d 1214, 1217 (11th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>) (quoting McKinnon v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield

A: recognizing doctrine
B: recognizing that the doctrine of judicial estoppel  is applied to the calculated assertion of divergent sworn positions the doctrine is designed to prevent parties from making a mockery of justice by inconsistent pleadings 
C: recognizing the doctrine of collateral estoppel in agency proceedings
D: recognizing that the purpose of the setoff doctrine is to prevent circuity of judicial actions
B.