promissory estoppel claim in Colorado

1992See Continental Air Lines, Inc. v. Keenan, 731 P.2d 708, 711 (Colo.1987) (employee hired under contract terminable at will may enforce termination procedures in employee manual under contractual principles of offer and acceptance or under doctrine of promissory estoppel); accord, Churchey v. Adolph Coors Co., 759 P.2d 1336, 1348 (Colo.1988). .

1992See Continental Air Lines, Inc. v. Keenan, 731 P.2d 708, 711 (Colo.1987) (employee hired under contract terminable at will may enforce termination procedures in employee manual under contractual principles of offer and acceptance or under doctrine of promissory estoppel); accord, Churchey v. Adolph Coors Co., 759 P.2d 1336, 1348 (Colo. 1988). [2] The four states upholding a claim for wrongful discharge under the public policy exception were California, Indiana, New Hampshire, and Oregon: Petermann v. International Bhd. of Teamsters Local 396, 174 Cal.App.2d 184 , 344 P.2d 25 (1959) (employee t

1992See Continental Air Lines, Inc. v. Keenan, 731 P.2d 708, 711 (Colo.1987) (employee hired under contract terminable at will may enforce termination procedures in employee manual under contractual principles of offer and acceptance or under doctrine of promissory estoppel); accord, Churchey v. Adolph Coors Co., 759 P.2d 1336, 1348 (Colo.1988). .

1992See Continental Air Lines, Inc. v. Keenan, 731 P.2d 708, 711 (Colo.1987) (employee hired under contract terminable at will may enforce termination procedures in employee manual under contractual principles of offer and acceptance or under doctrine of promissory estoppel); accord, Churchey v. Adolph Coors Co., 759 P.2d 1336, 1348 (Colo. 1988). [2] The four states upholding a claim for wrongful discharge under the public policy exception were California, Indiana, New Hampshire, and Oregon: Petermann v. International Bhd. of Teamsters Local 396, 174 Cal.App.2d 184 , 344 P.2d 25 (1959) (employee t

2025So the court concluded that the lessee’s claim was not the sort of equitable estoppel claim described in Lehman but akin to a promissory estoppel claim, which lay in contract, see DeLozier, 917 P.2d at 716-17 .

2016Comm’rs v. DeLozier, 917 P.2d 714, 715 (Colo. 1996) (distinguishing promissory estoppel from equitable estoppel based on either a negligent or intentional misrepresentation of fact and concluding that a promissory estoppel claim is not subject to the CGIA)).

2022Germain, 670 P.2d 764 , 767 30 (Colo. 1983) (describing the doctrine of promissory estoppel as applying when a party’s action is “induced by a specific promise”). 3.

2014Germain, 670 P.2d 764, 767 (Colo.1983).

2006Patzer v. City of Loveland, 80 P.3d 908, 912 (Colo.App.2003). "[A]s a general rule, `those who deal with the Government are expected to know the law and may not rely on the conduct of government agents contrary to the law.'" Emery Mining Corp. v. Sec'y of Labor, 744 F.2d 1411 , 1416 (10th Cir.1984) (quoting Heckler v. Cmty. Health Servs., 467 U.S. 51, 63 , 104 S.Ct. 2218, 2225 , 81 L.Ed.2d 42 (1984)).

2006See Patzer v. City of Loveland, 80 P.3d 908 (Colo.App.2003)(rejecting contention that city's issuance of building permit created contractual obligation or would support a promissory estoppel claim, where plaintiffs' claim was essentially one for negligent misrepresentation); CAMAS Colorado, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners, 36 P.3d 135, 138 (Colo.App.2001)("In determining whether a claim is contractual or lies in tort, a court should examine whether the claim and the duty allegedly breached arise from the terms of the contract itself."); Morrison v. City of Aurora, 745 P.2d 1042 (Colo.App

1995Chidester v. Eastern Gas & Fuel Assoc., 859 P.2d 222, 224 (Colo.App.1992); Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 90 (1979).

1995See Kiely, 670 P.2d at 767 ; Chidester, 859 P.2d at 224 .

2025See § 13-25-127(1), C.R.S. 2025 (“[T]he burden of proof in any civil action shall be by a preponderance of the evidence.”); see also Nicol v. Nelson, 776 P.2d 1144, 1147 (Colo. App. 1989) (holding that a promissory estoppel claim must be established by a preponderance of the evidence).

2024Assocs., Ltd. v. United Bank of Durango, 857 P.2d 410, 420 (Colo. 1993) (reviewing equitable claims for abuse of discretion). ¶ 33 A promissory estoppel claim has four elements: (1) the promisor made a promise; (2) the promisor should have reasonably expected that the promise would induce action or forbearance by the promisee; (3) the promisee reasonably relied on the promise to their detriment; and (4) the promise must be enforced to prevent injustice.

2014“If facts are undisputed and reasonable minds could draw but one inference from them, [the determination of an ultimate fact] is a question of law for [an appellate] court.” Schrieber v. Brown & Root, Inc., 888 P.2d 274, 277 (Colo.App.1993).

2008See Gulick v. A. Robert Strawn & Assocs., Inc., 477 P.2d 489, 491 (Colo.App. 1970) (not published under C.A.R. 35(f)) (acceptance of benefit under a contract constitutes ratification equally with written confirmation); see also Board of County Comm'rs v. DeLozier, 917 P.2d 714, 716 (Colo.1996) (doctrine of promissory estoppel is "a modest extension of the basic contract principle that one who makes promises must be required to *607 keep them;" it provides a remedy to those who rely to their detriment upon promises which the promisor should have reasonably expected to induce such reliance).

2007See Jardel Enterprises, Inc. v. Triconsultants, Inc., 770 P.2d 1301 (Colo.App.1988).

2006See Patzer v. City of Loveland, 80 P.3d 908 (Colo.App.2003)(rejecting contention that city's issuance of building permit created contractual obligation or would support a promissory estoppel claim, where plaintiffs' claim was essentially one for negligent misrepresentation); CAMAS Colorado, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners, 36 P.3d 135, 138 (Colo.App.2001)("In determining whether a claim is contractual or lies in tort, a court should examine whether the claim and the duty allegedly breached arise from the terms of the contract itself."); Morrison v. City of Aurora, 745 P.2d 1042 (Colo.App

2000See Samples-Ehrlich v. Simon, 876 P.2d 108 (Colo.App.1994) (tolling of statute because of reliance upon promise is appropriate in some circumstances, but here statute required promise to be in writing); Mountainwood Condominium Homeowners Ass’n v. Cal-Colorado, 765 P.2d 1066 (Colo.App.1988) (party who reasonably relies upon promise or representation of another may assert equitable estoppel to stay running of statute); Kniffin v. Colorado Western Development Co., 622 P.2d 586 (Colo.App.1980) (where defendant promised to perform obligations within reasonable time, statute did not run until effor

1998See Scott Co. v. MK-Ferguson, Co., 832 P.2d 1000 (Colo.App.1991) (promissory estoppel is available only in the absence of an otherwise enforceable contract).

1995This court, in Vigoda v. Denver Urban Renewal Auth., 646 P.2d 900, 905 (Colo.1982), adopted the doctrine of promissory estoppel, articulated in section 90. 3 The elements of a claim for promissory estoppel are: (1) a promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee; (2) action or forbearance induced by that promise; and (3) the existence of circumstances such that injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.

1995This court, in Vigoda v. Denver Urban Renewal Auth., 646 P.2d 900, 905 (Colo.1982), adopted the doctrine of promissory estoppel, articulated in section 90. [3] The elements of a claim for promissory estoppel are: (1) a promise which the promisor should reasonably expect to induce action or forbearance of a definite and substantial character on the part of the promisee; (2) action or forbearance induced by that promise; and (3) the existence of circumstances such that injustice can be avoided only by enforcement of the promise.

1995See Ralston Oil & Gas Co. v. July Corp., 719 P.2d 334 (Colo.App.1985); Mead Associates, Inc. v. Antonsen, 677 P.2d 434 (Colo.App.1984).

1995See Quandary Land Development Co. v. Porter, 159 Colo. 8 , 408 P.2d 978 (1965).

1995See Quandary Land Development Co. v. Porter, 159 Colo. 8 , 408 P.2d 978 (1965).