19 Massachusetts opinions name it 4 courts 1917–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Massachusetts courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Boston & Albany Railroad v. Reardongreen2 sentences2014See Reardon, supra (“[T]he doctrine of estoppel is not applied except when to refuse it would be inequitable”). 1989Johnson v. Brockton, supra. The doctrine of estoppel is equally inapplicable. “[T]he doctrine of estoppel is not applied except when to refuse it would be inequitable.” Corea v. Board of Assessors of Bedford, 384 Mass. 809 (1981), quoting Boston & A. R.R. v. Reardon, 226 Mass. 286, 291 (1917). | 7 | 12 |
Cleaveland v. Malden Savings Bankgreen2 sentences2015Bank, 291 Mass. 295, 297 (1935). 2007Bank, 291 Mass. 295, 297 (1935) (internal quotation and citation omitted). | 3 | 3 |
Turnpike Motors, Inc. v. Newbury Group, Inc.green2 sentences2015“T]he doctrine of estoppel is not applied except when to refuse it would be inequitable.” Sullivan, Id. quoting Cleaveland v. Malden Sav. 2007Sullivan, 448 Mass. at 28 , quoting Turnpike Motors, Inc. v. Newbury Group, Inc., 413 Mass. 119, 125 (1992). “(T]he doctrine of estoppel is not applied except when to refuse it would be inequitable.” Sullivan, 448 Mass. at 28 , quoting Cleaveland v. Malden Sav. | 2 | 3 |
McLearn v. Hillgreen2 sentences1985See also McLearn v. Hill, 276 Mass. 519, 524 (1931). 1958In McLearn v. Hill, 276 Mass. 519 , it is written: “Fraud in its strict sense is not essential to estoppel”, but an estoppel may be created not only by “fraud arising from an intention to mislead” but also by “words or conduct not consonant with fairness and designed to induce action by the plaintiff to his harm in nature not different from that caused by fraud in its grosser aspects.” Ford v. Rogovin, 249 Mass. 549 , 552. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Massachusetts. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Corea v. Board of Assessors
green
2 sentences1989Johnson v. Brockton, supra. The doctrine of estoppel is equally inapplicable. “[T]he doctrine of estoppel is not applied except when to refuse it would be inequitable.” Corea v. Board of Assessors of Bedford, 384 Mass. 809 (1981), quoting Boston & A. R.R. v. Reardon, 226 Mass. 286, 291 (1917). 1983Corea v. Assessors of Bedford, 384 Mass. 809 (1981). | 2 | 1983–1989 |
Tracy v. Lincoln
green
2 sentences1925Tracy v. Lincoln, 145 Mass. 357, 360 . 1917“The law does not regard estoppels with favor, nor extend them beyond the requirements of the transactions in which they originate.” Tracy v. Lincoln, 145 Mass. 357, 360 . | 2 | 1917–1925 |
Licata v. GGNSC Malden Dexter LLC
green
1 sentence2014“To establish estoppel, a party must show (1) a representation intended to induce reliance on the part of a person to whom the representation is made; (2) an act or omission by that person in reasonable reliance on the representation; and (3) detriment as a consequence of the act or omission.” Licata, supra (quotation omitted). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Johnson v. City of Brockton
green
1 sentence1989Johnson v. Brockton, supra. The doctrine of estoppel is equally inapplicable. “[T]he doctrine of estoppel is not applied except when to refuse it would be inequitable.” Corea v. Board of Assessors of Bedford, 384 Mass. 809 (1981), quoting Boston & A. R.R. v. Reardon, 226 Mass. 286, 291 (1917). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. v. West Edmond Hunton Lime Unit
neutral
1 sentence1980Holding Co., 328 Mass. 63, 80 , cert. denied, 343 U. S. 920 (1951). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Delaware & Hudson Co. v. Boston Railroad Holding Co.
green
1 sentence1980Holding Co., 328 Mass. 63, 80 , cert. denied, 343 U. S. 920 (1951). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Augello v. Hanover Trust Co.
green
1 sentence1953Augello v. Hanover Trust Co., 253 Mass. 160, 167 . | 1 | 1953–1953 |
Looney v. Trimount Theatres, Inc.
green
1 sentence1937The law does not regard estoppels with favor, nor extend them beyond the requirements of the transactions in which they originate.” And in McLearn v. Hill, supra, at page 525, and in Looney v. Trimount Theatres, Inc., supra, at page 278, the court quoted wdth approval from Howard v. West Jersey & Seashore Railroad, 102 N. J. | 1 | 1937–1937 |
Bloomfield v. Charter Oak Bank
green
1 sentence1935This language occurs in Bloomfield v. Charter Oak Bank, 121 U. S. 121 , 135: “no estoppel in pais can be created, except by conduct which the person setting up the estoppel has the right to rely upon, and does in fact rely and act upon.” It was said in Greenwood v. Martins Bank, Ltd. [1933] A. C. 51, 57: “The essential factors giving rise to an estoppel are . . . (1.) A representation or conduct amounting to a representation intended to induce a course of conduct on the part of the person to whom the representation is made. (2.) An act or omission resulting from the representation, whether act | 1 | 1935–1935 |