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.
10 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1894–2014 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hurd Etc. v. Ballgreen2 sentences1979“The doctrine of estoppel to assert the statute of frauds against a claim based upon an oral contract is founded upon the vital principle that ‘he who by his language or conduct leads another to do, upon the faith of an oral agreement, what he would not otherwise have done, and changes his position to his prejudice, will not be allowed to subject such person to loss or injury, or to avail himself of that change to the prejudice of such other party.’ 49 Am.Jur., Statute of Frauds, § 583, page 890.” (Original emphasis.) Hurd etc. v. Ball et al. (1957), 128 Ind.App. 278, at 295 , 143 N.E.2d 458, 1979“The doctrine of estoppel to assert the statute of frauds against a claim based upon an oral contract is founded upon the vital principle that ‘he who by his language or conduct leads another to do, upon the faith of an oral agreement, what he would not otherwise have done, and changes his position to his prejudice, will not be allowed to subject such person to loss or injury, or to avail himself of that change to the prejudice of such other party.’ 49 Am.Jur., Statute of Frauds, § 583, page 890.” (Original emphasis.) Hurd etc. v. Ball et al. (1957), 128 Ind.App. 278, at 295 , 143 N.E.2d 458, | 1 | 3 |
Dupont Feedmill Corp. v. Standard Supply Corp.green2 sentences2014Dupont Feedmill Corp. v. Standard Supply Corp., 182 Ind. App. 459, 463 , 395 N.E.2d 808, 811 (1979) (quoting Hurd v. Ball, 128 Ind. App. 278, 295 , 143 N.E.2d 458, 466 (1957)). 2014Dupont Feedmill Corp. v. Standard Supply Corp., 182 Ind. App. 459, 463 , 395 N.E.2d 808, 811 (1979) (quoting Hurd v. Ball, 128 Ind. App. 278, 295 , 143 N.E.2d 458, 466 (1957)). | 1 | 1 |
Wilkerson v. Woodgreen2 sentences1997And in Dudley v. Pigg, supra [ 149 Ind. 363, 371 , 48 N.E. 642 (1897) ], it was said:—‘One who insists upon the acts of another working an estoppel must show that he acted upon the same, and was influenced thereby to do some act which would result in an injury if the other person is permitted to withdraw or deny the act.’ Wilkerson v. Wood, 81 Ind.App. 248, 254-255 , 143 N.E. 166, 168 (1924) (no reliance upon appellants as partners and therefore no entitlement to an estoppel). 1997And in Dudley v. Pigg, supra [ 149 Ind. 363, 371 , 48 N.E. 642 (1897) ], it was said:—‘One who insists upon the acts of another working an estoppel must show that he acted upon the same, and was influenced thereby to do some act which would result in an injury if the other person is permitted to withdraw or deny the act.’ Wilkerson v. Wood, 81 Ind.App. 248, 254-255 , 143 N.E. 166, 168 (1924) (no reliance upon appellants as partners and therefore no entitlement to an estoppel). | 1 | 1 |
Blake v. Hosfordgreen1 sentence1979See also Blake v. Hosford, (1979) Ind.App., 387 N.E.2d 1335, 1341 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dudley v. Pigg
green
2 sentences1997And in Dudley v. Pigg, supra [ 149 Ind. 363, 371 , 48 N.E. 642 (1897) ], it was said:—‘One who insists upon the acts of another working an estoppel must show that he acted upon the same, and was influenced thereby to do some act which would result in an injury if the other person is permitted to withdraw or deny the act.’ Wilkerson v. Wood, 81 Ind.App. 248, 254-255 , 143 N.E. 166, 168 (1924) (no reliance upon appellants as partners and therefore no entitlement to an estoppel). 1924In Kiefer v. Klinsick (1895), 144 Ind. 46 , it was said: “The vital principle of an equitable estoppel is that of fraud. * *■ * The doctrine has no. application where * * * the other party was not influenced by the acts asserted in estoppel.” And in Dudley v. Pigg, supra, it was said: —“One who insists upon the acts of another working an estoppel must show that he acted upon the same, and was influenced thereby to do some act which would result in an injury if the other person is permitted to withdraw or deny the act.” In Anderson v. Hubble (1884), 93 Ind. 570 , 47 Am. | 2 | 1924–1997 |
Kiefer v. Klinsick
green
2 sentences1939As was said by the Supreme Court of this state in Kiefer et ad. v. Klinsick (1896), 144 Ind. 46, 54 , 42 N. E. 447 : “The vital principle of an equitable estoppel is that of fraud. 1939As was said by the Supreme Court of this state in Kiefer et ad. v. Klinsick (1896), 144 Ind. 46, 54 , 42 N. E. 447 : “The vital principle of an equitable estoppel is that of fraud. | 2 | 1924–1939 |
Short v. Texaco, Inc.
green
1 sentence1981“We reaffirm again now in this case our adherence to this vital principle.” (parentheses original) 406 N.E.2d at 627-28 . | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Chicago & North Western Transportation Co. v. Pedersen
green
2 sentences1980In Chicago and North Western Transportation Co. v. Pedersen, (1977) 80 Wis.2d 566 , 259 N.W.2d 316 , the Supreme Court of Wisconsin voided a similar act which directed that mineral rights revert to the surface fee ownership if they were not registered or taxes had not been paid on them. 1980In Chicago and North Western Transportation Co. v. Pedersen, (1977) 80 Wis.2d 566 , 259 N.W.2d 316 , the Supreme Court of Wisconsin voided a similar act which directed that mineral rights revert to the surface fee ownership if they were not registered or taxes had not been paid on them. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Anderson v. Hubble
green
1 sentence1924In Kiefer v. Klinsick (1895), 144 Ind. 46 , it was said: “The vital principle of an equitable estoppel is that of fraud. * *■ * The doctrine has no. application where * * * the other party was not influenced by the acts asserted in estoppel.” And in Dudley v. Pigg, supra, it was said: —“One who insists upon the acts of another working an estoppel must show that he acted upon the same, and was influenced thereby to do some act which would result in an injury if the other person is permitted to withdraw or deny the act.” In Anderson v. Hubble (1884), 93 Ind. 570 , 47 Am. | 1 | 1924–1924 |
Galey v. Mason
green
1 sentence1920Appellees cite Galey v. Mason (1910), 174 Ind. 158 , Ann. | 1 | 1920–1920 |
Dickerson v. Colgrove
green
1 sentence1894Such a change of position is sternly forbidden.” Dickerson v. Colgrove, 100 U. S. 578 , approved in Quick v. Milligan, 108 Ind. 419 . | 1 | 1894–1894 |
Quick v. Milligan
green
1 sentence1894Such a change of position is sternly forbidden.” Dickerson v. Colgrove, 100 U. S. 578 , approved in Quick v. Milligan, 108 Ind. 419 . | 1 | 1894–1894 |
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.