equitable estoppel doctrine in Hawaii

1980This court first enunciated the doctrine of equitable estoppel, as it applied to land development, in Denning v. County of Maui, 52 Haw. 653 , 485 P.2d 1048 (1971), and reaffirmed the viability of that doctrine in this jurisdiction in Allen v. City and County of Honolulu, 58 Haw. 432 , 571 P.2d 328 (1977).

1980This court first enunciated the doctrine of equitable estoppel, as it applied to land development, in Denning v. County of Maui, 52 Haw. 653 , 485 P.2d 1048 (1971), and reaffirmed the viability of that doctrine in this jurisdiction in Allen v. City and County of Honolulu, 58 Haw. 432 , 571 P.2d 328 (1977).

2021"Equitable estoppel is a defense requiring 'proof that one person wilfully caused another person to erroneously believe a certain state of things, and that person reasonably relied on this erroneous belief to his or her detriment.'" Herrmann v. Herrmann, 138 Hawai#i 144, 155 n.11, 378 P.3d 860 , 871 n.11 (2016) (quoting Maria v. Freitas, 73 Haw. 266, 273 , 832 P.2d 259, 264 (1992)). "[A]bsent manifest injustice, 'the party invoking equitable estoppel must show that he or she has detrimentally relied on the representation or conduct of the person sought to be estopped, and that such reliance wa

2019Because it was "beyond dispute that the power of taxation is a sovereign power of the state," the court reasoned that "the doctrine of equitable estoppel may not be applied against the government's power to tax." Id. at 194, 166 P.3d at 367 (citing Fitzgerald v. City of Bangor , 726 A.2d 1253 , 1255-56 (Me. 1999) ; PCS, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue , 176 Ariz. 628 , 630, 863 P.2d 920 , (Ariz. T.C. 1993) ).

2019Because it was "beyond dispute that the power of taxation is a sovereign power of the state," the court reasoned that "the doctrine of equitable estoppel may not be applied against the government's power to tax." Id. at 194, 166 P.3d at 367 (citing Fitzgerald v. City of Bangor , 726 A.2d 1253 , 1255-56 (Me. 1999) ; PCS, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue , 176 Ariz. 628 , 630, 863 P.2d 920 , (Ariz. T.C. 1993) ).

2019Because it was "beyond dispute that the power of taxation is a sovereign power of the state," the court reasoned that "the doctrine of equitable estoppel may not be applied against the government's power to tax." Id. at 194, 166 P.3d at 367 (citing Fitzgerald v. City of Bangor , 726 A.2d 1253 , 1255-56 (Me. 1999) ; PCS, Inc. v. Ariz. Dep't of Revenue , 176 Ariz. 628 , 630, 863 P.2d 920 , (Ariz. T.C. 1993) ).

2019In so holding, this court quoted from Fitzgerald v. City of Bangor , a decision by the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine holding that estoppel is unavailable in tax cases in order "to assure that no officer of government has the ability to interfere inadvertently with the government's fundamental sovereign power to tax its citizens." 115 Hawai'i at 194 , 166 P.3d at 367 (quoting Fitzgerald, 726 A.2d at 1255-56 ).

2004The [c]ourt finds that pursuant to Cochran v. Pflueger Auto., 72 Haw. 460 [, 821 P.2d 934 ] (1991) when workers’] compensation benefit payments cease for 2 years, the claim becomes time-barred; and that both Wright v. State Farm, 86 Hawai'i 357 , 949 P.2d 197 (Haw.App.1997) and Matsushita v. Container Home Supply, 6 Haw.App. 439 [, 726 P.2d 273 ] (1986) are distinguishable as well as the doctrine of equitable estoppel; therefore, IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment as to all Claims is hereby gr

2004The [c]ourt finds that pursuant to Cochran v. Pflueger Auto., 72 Haw. 460 [, 821 P.2d 934 ] (1991) when workers’] compensation benefit payments cease for 2 years, the claim becomes time-barred; and that both Wright v. State Farm, 86 Hawai'i 357 , 949 P.2d 197 (Haw.App.1997) and Matsushita v. Container Home Supply, 6 Haw.App. 439 [, 726 P.2d 273 ] (1986) are distinguishable as well as the doctrine of equitable estoppel; therefore, IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment as to all Claims is hereby gr

2004The [c]ourt finds that pursuant to Cochran v. Pflueger Auto., 72 Haw. 460 [, 821 P.2d 934 ] (1991) when workers’] compensation benefit payments cease for 2 years, the claim becomes time-barred; and that both Wright v. State Farm, 86 Hawai'i 357 , 949 P.2d 197 (Haw.App.1997) and Matsushita v. Container Home Supply, 6 Haw.App. 439 [, 726 P.2d 273 ] (1986) are distinguishable as well as the doctrine of equitable estoppel; therefore, IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment as to all Claims is hereby gr

2004The [c]ourt finds that pursuant to Cochran v. Pflueger Auto., 72 Haw. 460 [, 821 P.2d 934 ] (1991) when workers’] compensation benefit payments cease for 2 years, the claim becomes time-barred; and that both Wright v. State Farm, 86 Hawai'i 357 , 949 P.2d 197 (Haw.App.1997) and Matsushita v. Container Home Supply, 6 Haw.App. 439 [, 726 P.2d 273 ] (1986) are distinguishable as well as the doctrine of equitable estoppel; therefore, IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment as to all Claims is hereby gr

2004The [c]ourt finds that pursuant to Cochran v. Pflueger Auto., 72 Haw. 460 [, 821 P.2d 934 ] (1991) when workers’] compensation benefit payments cease for 2 years, the claim becomes time-barred; and that both Wright v. State Farm, 86 Hawai'i 357 , 949 P.2d 197 (Haw.App.1997) and Matsushita v. Container Home Supply, 6 Haw.App. 439 [, 726 P.2d 273 ] (1986) are distinguishable as well as the doctrine of equitable estoppel; therefore, IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment as to all Claims is hereby gr

2004The [c]ourt finds that pursuant to Cochran v. Pflueger Auto., 72 Haw. 460 [, 821 P.2d 934 ] (1991) when workers’] compensation benefit payments cease for 2 years, the claim becomes time-barred; and that both Wright v. State Farm, 86 Hawai'i 357 , 949 P.2d 197 (Haw.App.1997) and Matsushita v. Container Home Supply, 6 Haw.App. 439 [, 726 P.2d 273 ] (1986) are distinguishable as well as the doctrine of equitable estoppel; therefore, IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment as to all Claims is hereby gr

1995Although the actual date of acceptance appears to have been a question of fact, the court in McIntosh determined that “there is no need to discuss [this issue because] ... we base our decision in this case on the doctrine of equitable estoppel [.] ” Id. at 32 , 469 P.2d at 179 (citing reliance by McIntosh on the oral contract, in the form of part performance) (emphasis added).

1995Although the actual date of acceptance appears to have been a question of fact, the court in McIntosh determined that “there is no need to discuss [this issue because] ... we base our decision in this case on the doctrine of equitable estoppel [.] ” Id. at 32 , 469 P.2d at 179 (citing reliance by McIntosh on the oral contract, in the form of part performance) (emphasis added).

1990We initially note that “the doctrine of equitable estoppel is Mly applicable against the government if it is necessary to invoke it to prevent manifest injustice.” Yamada v. Natural Disaster Claims Comm’n, 54 Haw. 621, 629 , 513 P.2d 1001, 1006 , reh’g denied, 55 Haw. 126 , 516 P.2d 336 (1973) (citations omitted).

1990We initially note that “the doctrine of equitable estoppel is Mly applicable against the government if it is necessary to invoke it to prevent manifest injustice.” Yamada v. Natural Disaster Claims Comm’n, 54 Haw. 621, 629 , 513 P.2d 1001, 1006 , reh’g denied, 55 Haw. 126 , 516 P.2d 336 (1973) (citations omitted).

1990We initially note that “the doctrine of equitable estoppel is Mly applicable against the government if it is necessary to invoke it to prevent manifest injustice.” Yamada v. Natural Disaster Claims Comm’n, 54 Haw. 621, 629 , 513 P.2d 1001, 1006 , reh’g denied, 55 Haw. 126 , 516 P.2d 336 (1973) (citations omitted).

1990We initially note that “the doctrine of equitable estoppel is Mly applicable against the government if it is necessary to invoke it to prevent manifest injustice.” Yamada v. Natural Disaster Claims Comm’n, 54 Haw. 621, 629 , 513 P.2d 1001, 1006 , reh’g denied, 55 Haw. 126 , 516 P.2d 336 (1973) (citations omitted).

1980It stated that the Revised Charter Commission exceptéd the solicitation and acceptance of lawful campaign contributions from the operation of the conflicts of interest provision because it recognized that “campaign contributions should be covered by a separate law in view of its broad ramifications and desirability of uniform control throughout the State”. *453 Finally, with regard to the seventh issue, which is concerned with the applicability of the doctrine of equitable estoppel on the City Council approval of the Developers’ application for variance or modification, we reaffirm, as an addi

1980It stated that the Revised Charter Commission exceptéd the solicitation and acceptance of lawful campaign contributions from the operation of the conflicts of interest provision because it recognized that “campaign contributions should be covered by a separate law in view of its broad ramifications and desirability of uniform control throughout the State”. *453 Finally, with regard to the seventh issue, which is concerned with the applicability of the doctrine of equitable estoppel on the City Council approval of the Developers’ application for variance or modification, we reaffirm, as an addi

1980This court first enunciated the doctrine of equitable estoppel, as it applied to land development, in Denning v. County of Maui, 52 Haw. 653 , 485 P.2d 1048 (1971), and reaffirmed the viability of that doctrine in this jurisdiction in Allen v. City and County of Honolulu, 58 Haw. 432 , 571 P.2d 328 (1977).

1980This court first enunciated the doctrine of equitable estoppel, as it applied to land development, in Denning v. County of Maui, 52 Haw. 653 , 485 P.2d 1048 (1971), and reaffirmed the viability of that doctrine in this jurisdiction in Allen v. City and County of Honolulu, 58 Haw. 432 , 571 P.2d 328 (1977).

1972The leading case upon such proposition as an equitable defense is that of Fried v. Fisher, et al. [ 328 Pa. 497 , 196 A. 39 ], supra, which holds that a promissory estoppel may arise as an application of the general principle of equitable estoppel to certain situations where a promise has been made, even without consideration, if it was intended that the promise be relied upon and was in fact relied upon, and a refusal to enforce it would be virtually to sanction the perpetration of fraud or result in other injustice.

1972The leading case upon such proposition as an equitable defense is that of Fried v. Fisher, et al. [ 328 Pa. 497 , 196 A. 39 ], supra, which holds that a promissory estoppel may arise as an application of the general principle of equitable estoppel to certain situations where a promise has been made, even without consideration, if it was intended that the promise be relied upon and was in fact relied upon, and a refusal to enforce it would be virtually to sanction the perpetration of fraud or result in other injustice.

1942In Riggles v. Erney, 154 U. S. 244, 254 , the doctrine of part performance is set forth in the following language: “Indeed, the rule is too well settled to require further citation of authorities, that, if the parol agreement be clearly and satisfactorily proven, and the plaintiff, relying upon such agreement and the promise of the defendant to perform his part, has done acts in part performance of such agreement, to the knowledge of the defendant — acts which have so altered the relations of the parties as to prevent their restoration to their former condition- — -it would be a virtual fraud

1942(Beaverton Power Co. v. Wolverine Power Co., 245 Mich. 541 , 222 N. W. 703 .) Consequently, the doctrine of equitable estoppel was unsuccessfully raised as a defense.

1942(Beaverton Power Co. v. Wolverine Power Co., 245 Mich. 541 , 222 N. W. 703 .) Consequently, the doctrine of equitable estoppel was unsuccessfully raised as a defense.