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.
9 Alaska opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2015 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Alaska 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 |
|---|---|---|
Municipality of Anchorage v. Schneidergreen2 sentences1997Crum’s claim meets the third and fourth elements of the estoppel test because his reliance resulted in prejudice, and application of the equitable estoppel doctrine in this case “serves the interest of justice so as to limit public injury.” In discussing this final element, we observed in Municipality of Anchorage v. Schneider, 685 P.2d 94, 97 (Alaska 1984), that even where reliance has been foreseeable, reasonable, and substantial, the interest of justice may not be served by the application of estoppel because the public interest would be significantly prejudiced. 1988The court went on to say that “While we recognize the general validity of this policy, we believe it can be adequately served within the doctrine of estoppel.” Id. 9 Arguably EM is not in the same position as an average citizen who is unaware of the limits on a public entity’s authority. | 1 | 3 |
Sengul v. CMS Franklin, Inc.green1 sentence2015See Sengul, 265 P.3d at 328 . 18 . | 1 | 1 |
Russell v. Municipality of Anchoragegreen2 sentences1991Russell v. Municipality of Anchorage, 743 P.2d 372, 376 (Alaska 1987) (quoting Groseth v. Ness, 421 P.2d 624 , 632 n. 23 (Alaska 1966)). 1991Russell v. Municipality of Anchorage, 743 P.2d 372, 376 (Alaska 1987) (quoting Groseth v. Ness, 421 P.2d 624 , 632 n. 23 (Alaska 1966)). | 1 | 1 |
Tosco Corp. v. Hodelgreen2 sentences1988Assuming all other elements of estoppel are present, ... even conduct based on a mistake of law will qualify as “affirmative misconduct” if the refusal to estop the government will work an inequitable or unjust result. 611 F.Supp. at 1205-06 (citations omitted; emphasis in original). 1988Assuming all other elements of estoppel are present, ... even conduct based on a mistake of law will qualify as "affirmative misconduct" if the refusal to estop the government will work an inequitable or unjust result. 611 F. Supp. at 1205-06 (citations omitted; emphasis in original). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Ruby Company, a Utah Corporationgreen2 sentences1988The majority, citing United States v. Ruby Co., 588 F.2d 697, 703 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 917 , 99 S.Ct. 2838 , 61 L.Ed.2d 284 (1979), lists five elements that must be found in order to justify invocation of the equitable doctrine of estoppel. 1988The majority, citing United States v. Ruby Co., 588 F.2d 697, 703 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 917 , 99 S.Ct. 2838 , 61 L.Ed.2d 284 (1979), lists five elements that must be found in order to justify invocation of the equitable doctrine of estoppel. | 1 | 1 |
Stevenson v. Burgessgreen1 sentence1986Stevenson v. Burgess, 570 P.2d 728, 732 (Alaska 1977). | 1 | 1 |
Jamison v. Consolidated Utilities, Inc.green2 sentences1983Estoppel requires “the assertion of a position by conduct or word, reasonable reliance thereon by another party, and resulting prejudice.” Jamison v. Consolidated Utilities, Inc., 576 P.2d 97, 102 (Alaska 1978) (footnote omitted). 1983Estoppel requires "the assertion of a position by conduct or word, reasonable reliance thereon by another party, and resulting prejudice." Jamison v. Consolidated Utilities, Inc., 576 P.2d 97, 102 (Alaska 1978) (footnote omitted). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Alaska. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N OF STATE
green
1 sentence1993The Colorado court characterized the set-off as in the nature of an affirmative defense to a claim for workers’ compensation benefits, and concluded that “once a prima facie case was established on the issue of setoff,” the burden shifted to Johnson to prove “by a preponderance of the evidence that he was entitled to relief from the claimed offset on the basis of an estoppel or waiver.” Id. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Groseth v. Ness
green
2 sentences1991Russell v. Municipality of Anchorage, 743 P.2d 372, 376 (Alaska 1987) (quoting Groseth v. Ness, 421 P.2d 624 , 632 n. 23 (Alaska 1966)). 1991Russell v. Municipality of Anchorage, 743 P.2d 372, 376 (Alaska 1987) (quoting Groseth v. Ness, 421 P.2d 624 , 632 n. 23 (Alaska 1966)). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Robeson v. National Labor Relations Board
green
2 sentences1988The majority, citing United States v. Ruby Co., 588 F.2d 697, 703 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 917 , 99 S.Ct. 2838 , 61 L.Ed.2d 284 (1979), lists five elements that must be found in order to justify invocation of the equitable doctrine of estoppel. 1988The majority, citing United States v. Ruby Co., 588 F.2d 697, 703 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 917 , 99 S.Ct. 2838 , 61 L.Ed.2d 284 (1979), lists five elements that must be found in order to justify invocation of the equitable doctrine of estoppel. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Formica Corp. v. Lefkowitz
green
2 sentences1988The majority, citing United States v. Ruby Co., 588 F.2d 697, 703 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 917 , 99 S.Ct. 2838 , 61 L.Ed.2d 284 (1979), lists five elements that must be found in order to justify invocation of the equitable doctrine of estoppel. 1988The majority, citing United States v. Ruby Co., 588 F.2d 697, 703 (9th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 917 , 99 S.Ct. 2838 , 61 L.Ed.2d 284 (1979), lists five elements that must be found in order to justify invocation of the equitable doctrine of estoppel. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.