16 Kentucky opinions name it 3 courts 1923–2023 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kentucky 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 |
|---|---|---|
Fluke Corp. v. LeMastergreen2 sentences2012Id. at 67 . 2012Under Kentucky law, “equitable estoppel requires both a material misrepresentation by one party and reliance by the other party.” Fluke Corporation v. LeMaster, 306 S.W.3d 55, 62 (Ky.2010) (discussing the elements of an equitable estoppel defense). | 2 | 3 |
Akers v. Pike County Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2022Bd. of Educ., 171 S.W.3d 740, 743 (Ky. 2005). 2011Akers v. Pike County Bd. of Educ., 171 S.W.3d 740, 743 (Ky.2005). | 2 | 2 |
McDonald v. Burkegreen2 sentences2021See McDonald v. Burke, 288 S.W.2d 363 (Ky. 1956); P.V. & K. 2005See McDonald v. Burke, 288 S.W.2d 363 (Ky.1956); P.V. & K. | 2 | 2 |
Sparks v. Trustguard Insurance Co.green1 sentence2023Co., 389 S.W.3d 121, 126-27 (Ky. App. 2012) (quoting Bruestle v. S & M Motors, Inc., 914 S.W.2d 353, 355 (Ky. App. 1996)). | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Vilvarajahgreen1 sentence2023“The Court of Appeals cannot overrule the established precedent set by the Supreme Court or its predecessor Court.” Id. (citing Smith v. Vilvarajah, 57 S.W.3d 839, 841 (Ky. App. 2000)). 5 Rules of the Kentucky Supreme Court. -13- However, upon a closer look at Gillispie and its progeny, it is possible that Gillispie’s holding may have evolved in tandem with the doctrine of equitable estoppel. | 1 | 1 |
Bruestle v. S & M Motors, Inc.green1 sentence2023Co., 389 S.W.3d 121, 126-27 (Ky. App. 2012) (quoting Bruestle v. S & M Motors, Inc., 914 S.W.2d 353, 355 (Ky. App. 1996)). | 1 | 1 |
Srd v. Tlbgreen1 sentence2016S.R.D. v. T.L.B., 174 S.W.3d 502, 507 (Ky.App.2005). | 1 | 1 |
Microcomputer Technology Institute v. Rileygreen1 sentence2008In fact, we note that “[ejquitable estoppel is almost never available against the government.” Microcomputer Technology Institute v. Riley, 139 F.3d 1044, 1052 (5th Cir.1998)(referring specifically to the federal government). | 1 | 1 |
John M. v. Paula T.green2 sentences2007The court in Pettinato stated, “The underlying rationale of the equitable-estoppel doctrine is that ‘under certain circumstances, a person might be estopped from challenging paternity where that person has by his or her conduct accepted a given person as father of the child.’ ” Id. at 912-13 , quoting John M. v. Paula T., 524 Pa. 306 , 571 A.2d 1380, 1386 (Pa.1990). 2007The court in Pettinato stated, “The underlying rationale of the equitable-estoppel doctrine is that ‘under certain circumstances, a person might be estopped from challenging paternity where that person has by his or her conduct accepted a given person as father of the child.’ ” Id. at 912-13 , quoting John M. v. Paula T., 524 Pa. 306 , 571 A.2d 1380, 1386 (Pa.1990). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Magoffin County Board of Education
green
1 sentence2023It may be significant that our former highest court cited Gillispie within the context of equitable estoppel and discussed how equitable estoppel does not apply except under “special exceptions.” Maryland Casualty Company, 358 S.W.2d at 358-59 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Kindred Healthcare, Inc. v. Henson ex rel. Ferguson
green
1 sentence2023“The Court of Appeals cannot overrule the established precedent set by the Supreme Court or its predecessor Court.” Id. (citing Smith v. Vilvarajah, 57 S.W.3d 839, 841 (Ky. App. 2000)). 5 Rules of the Kentucky Supreme Court. -13- However, upon a closer look at Gillispie and its progeny, it is possible that Gillispie’s holding may have evolved in tandem with the doctrine of equitable estoppel. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Pettinato v. Pettinato
green
1 sentence2007The court in Pettinato stated, “The underlying rationale of the equitable-estoppel doctrine is that ‘under certain circumstances, a person might be estopped from challenging paternity where that person has by his or her conduct accepted a given person as father of the child.’ ” Id. at 912-13 , quoting John M. v. Paula T., 524 Pa. 306 , 571 A.2d 1380, 1386 (Pa.1990). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Kirk v. Hamilton
green
2 sentences1972The Tennessee opinion cites this language from an older case from the U.S. Supreme Court: “What I induce my neighbor to regard as true is the truth as between us, if he has been misled by my asseveration.” Kirk v. Hamilton, 102 U.S. 68 , 26 L.Ed. 79 . 1972The Tennessee opinion cites this language from an older case from the U.S. Supreme Court: “What I induce my neighbor to regard as true is the truth as between us, if he has been misled by my asseveration.” Kirk v. Hamilton, 102 U.S. 68 , 26 L.Ed. 79 . | 1 | 1972–1972 |
Sigmon v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1943Sigmon v. Commonwealth, 207 Ky. 786 , 270 S. W. 40 . 1943Sigmon v. Commonwealth, 207 Ky. 786 , 270 S. W. 40 . | 1 | 1943–1943 |
Ratcliffe v. Smith
neutral
1 sentence1927So the maxim, In pari delicto, potior est conditio defendentis, admirably illustrated by the opinion of Chief Justice Lindsey, Ratcliffe v. Smith, 13 Bush, 172 , a suit in equity, would seem to operate in favor of the defendants here. ‘Acquiescence imports active consent,’ and the rule invoked by the defendants had been applied to cases of acquiescense of creditors in corporate acts. 21 C. | 1 | 1927–1927 |
Wright v. Gardner
neutral
1 sentence1923Appellants insist that parties to a controversy may by agreement waive the statute of limitations, under our practice, or by new or subsequent promise toll the running of the statutes and extend -the time in which the plaintiff may bring an action, and cites in support of this contention the case of Wright v. Gardner, 98 Ky. 454 , where it is said: “It may be proper to add that we do not mean by anything said herein to intimate that 'a promise to pay a debt by the debtor, after the same is barred by the, statute of limitations is not g’ood and enforcible.” They also cite the text in 25 Cyc., p | 1 | 1923–1923 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.