Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
11 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1970–2022 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by West Virginia 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 |
|---|---|---|
Humble Oil & Refining Company v. Lanegreen2 sentences2022As in Humble Oil, at most, Dr. Clark said she would consider the claim and Ms. Adkins made a unilateral assumption that she could wait to file until Dr. Clark had decided one way or the other to settle the case. 13 “The doctrine of estoppel should be applied cautiously and only when equity clearly requires it to be done.” 14 Given the communications between Dr. Clark and Ms. Adkins, we are unpersuaded that equity demands this Court conclude that Ms. Adkins’s complaint was filed within the statute of limitations and affirm the circuit court’s order. 11 152 W. 2022“The doctrine of estoppel should be applied cautiously and only when equity clearly requires it to be done.” Syllabus Point 3, Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Lane, 152 W. | 1 | 8 |
Samsell v. State Line Development Co.green2 sentences2020Va. 48 , 174 S.E.2d 318 (1970) (“The doctrine of estoppel should be applied cautiously, only when equity clearly requires that it be done[.]”). 2007In Syllabus Point 7 of Samsell v. State Line Development Company, 154 W.Va. 48 , 174 S.E.2d 318 (1970) this Court acknowledged that the doctrine of estoppel may be applied against the State, but held that: The doctrine of estoppel should be applied cautiously, only when equity clearly requires that it be done, and this principle is applied with especial force when one undertakes to assert the doctrine against the state. | 1 | 4 |
Shaffer v. Monongalia General Hospitalgreen2 sentences1993In Shaffer v. Monongalia General Hospital, 135 W.Va. 163, 169-70 , 62 S.E.2d 795, 798 (1950), we stated: “The basic test in determining whether a public corporation, in its operations, is engaged in a discharge of a governmental function or is acting in a proprietary capacity is whether the act performed is for the common benefit of the public or is for the special benefit or profit of the corporation.” (Citation omitted). 1993In Shaffer v. Monongalia General Hospital, 135 W.Va. 163, 169-70 , 62 S.E.2d 795, 798 (1950), we stated: “The basic test in determining whether a public corporation, in its operations, is engaged in a discharge of a governmental function or is acting in a proprietary capacity is whether the act performed is for the common benefit of the public or is for the special benefit or profit of the corporation.” (Citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. Pughgreen2 sentences1993We explained this principle in Syllabus Point 7 of Samsell v. State Line Development Co., 154 W.Va. 48 , 174 S.E.2d 318 (1970): “The doctrine of estoppel should be applied cautiously, only when equity clearly requires that it be done, and this principle is applied with especial force when one undertakes to assert the doctrine of estop-pel against the state.” Moreover, “a municipality acting in a governmental, rather than a proprietary, capacity is not subject to the law of equitable estoppel and ... therefore, estoppel cannot be based on unauthorized acts of municipal authorities acting in a g 1993We explained this principle in Syllabus Point 7 of Samsell v. State Line Development Co., 154 W.Va. 48 , 174 S.E.2d 318 (1970): “The doctrine of estoppel should be applied cautiously, only when equity clearly requires that it be done, and this principle is applied with especial force when one undertakes to assert the doctrine of estop-pel against the state.” Moreover, “a municipality acting in a governmental, rather than a proprietary, capacity is not subject to the law of equitable estoppel and ... therefore, estoppel cannot be based on unauthorized acts of municipal authorities acting in a g | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stuart v. Lake Washington Realty Corp.
green
2 sentences1994Indeed, if ever a case existed to which the doctrine of estoppel should be applied, this is it. 10 This Court articulated the elements of equitable estoppel in syllabus point 6 of Stuart v. Lake Washington Realty Corp., 141 W.Va. 627 , 92 S.E.2d 891 (1956): The general rule governing the doctrine of equitable estoppel is that in order to constitute equitable estoppel or estoppel in pais there must exist a false representation or a concealment of material facts; it must have been made with knowledge, actual or constructive of the facts; the party to whom it was made must have been without knowl 1994Indeed, if ever a case existed to which the doctrine of estoppel should be applied, this is it. 10 This Court articulated the elements of equitable estoppel in syllabus point 6 of Stuart v. Lake Washington Realty Corp., 141 W.Va. 627 , 92 S.E.2d 891 (1956): The general rule governing the doctrine of equitable estoppel is that in order to constitute equitable estoppel or estoppel in pais there must exist a false representation or a concealment of material facts; it must have been made with knowledge, actual or constructive of the facts; the party to whom it was made must have been without knowl | 3 | 1970–1994 |
AMFM, LLC Commercial Holdings, LLC v. Kimberly Shanklin
green
1 sentence2022Va. 56 , 818 S.E.2d 882 (2018), “should compel this Court to find that the arbitration agreement is valid and enforceable . . . .” We disagree. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Bluestem Brands, Inc. d/b/a Fingerhut v. Darlene Shade
green
1 sentence2020Va. 694 , 805 S.E.2d 805 (2017): Continued . . . 15 any of the contract and agency theories expressed in Chesapeake Appalachia, “[t]he doctrine of estoppel should be applied cautiously and only when equity clearly requires it to be done.” Syllabus Point 3, Humble Oil & Ref. | 1 | 2020–2020 |