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 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Washington 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 |
|---|---|---|
Arnold v. Melanigreen2 sentences2020The doctrine of equitable estoppel rests on the principle that a person “shall not be permitted to deny what he has once solemnly acknowledged.” Arnold v. Melani, 75 Wn.2d 143, 147 , 449 P.2d 800 (1968). 2020The doctrine of equitable estoppel rests on the principle that a person “shall not be permitted to deny what he has once solemnly acknowledged.” Arnold v. Melani, 75 Wn.2d 143, 147 , 449 P.2d 800 (1968). | 1 | 3 |
In re the Marriage of Barbergreen2 sentences2012App. 390, 396 , 23 P.3d 1106 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Hartman v. Smith, 100 Wn.2d 766, 769 , 674 P.2d 176 (1984)). *54 Before we can apply estoppel in pais or equitable estoppel, three things must occur: (1) an admission, statement, or act inconsistent with the claim afterwards asserted; (2) action by the other party on the faith of such admission, statement, or act; and (3) injury to such other party resulting from allowing the first party to contradict or repudiate such admission, statement, or act. 2012See Laws of 1997, ch. 429, § 41. 13 Therefore, RCW 36.70A.165 neither barred the Nickells’ claim nor divested them of their title by adverse possession. 14 ¶18 The doctrine of equitable estoppel rests on the principle that a person “shall not be permitted to deny what he has once solemnly acknowledged.” Arnold v. Melani, 75 Wn.2d 143, 147 , 437 P.2d 908 , 449 P.2d 800 (1968). “ ‘[W]here a person, by his acts or representations, causes another to change his position or to refrain from performing a necessary act to such person’s detriment or prejudice, the person who performs such acts or makes | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hartman v. Smith
green
2 sentences2001“The doctrine of equitable estoppel rests on the principle that where a person, by his acts or representations, causes another to change his position or to refrain from performing a necessary act to such person’s detriment or prejudice, the person who performs such acts or makes such representations is precluded from asserting the conduct or forbearance of the other party to his own advantage.” Hartman v. Smith, 100 Wn.2d 766, 769 , 674 P.2d 176 (1984) (quoting Dickson v. United States Fid. & Guar. 2001“The doctrine of equitable estoppel rests on the principle that where a person, by his acts or representations, causes another to change his position or to refrain from performing a necessary act to such person’s detriment or prejudice, the person who performs such acts or makes such representations is precluded from asserting the conduct or forbearance of the other party to his own advantage.” Hartman v. Smith, 100 Wn.2d 766, 769 , 674 P.2d 176 (1984) (quoting Dickson v. United States Fid. & Guar. | 3 | 2001–2012 |
Crown Plaza Corp. v. Synapse Software System, Inc.
green
2 sentences2000"It requires three elements: (1) an admission, statement, or act inconsistent with the claim afterward asserted, (2) action by the other party on the faith of the admission, statement, or act, and (3) injury to the other party resulting from permitting the first party to contradict or repudiate the admission, statement, or act." Crown Plaza Corp. v. Synapse Software Sys., Inc., 87 Wash.App. 495, 502 , 962 P.2d 824 (1997) (citing Emrich v. Connell, 105 Wash.2d 551, 559 , 716 P.2d 863 (1986)). 2000“It requires three elements: (1) an admission, statement, or act inconsistent with the claim afterward asserted, (2) action by the other party on the faith of the admission, statement, or act, and (3) injury to the other party resulting from permitting the first party to contradict or repudiate the admission, statement, or act.” Crown Plaza Corp. v. Synapse Software Sys., Inc., 87 Wn. | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Nickell v. SOUTHVIEW HOMEOWNERS ASS'N
green
2 sentences2026App. 42, 53 , 271 P.3d 973 (2012) (quoting Arnold v. Melani, 75 Wn.2d 143, 147 , 449 P.2d 800 (1968)). 2026“The doctrine of equitable estoppel rests on the principle that a person ‘shall not be permitted to deny what he has once solemnly acknowledged.’” Nickell v. Southview Homeowners Ass’n, 167 Wn. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Dickson v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
green
2 sentences2001Co., 77 Wn.2d 785, 788 , 466 P.2d 515 (1970)). 2001Co., 77 Wn.2d 785, 788 , 466 P.2d 515 (1970)). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Emrich v. Connell
green
2 sentences2000"It requires three elements: (1) an admission, statement, or act inconsistent with the claim afterward asserted, (2) action by the other party on the faith of the admission, statement, or act, and (3) injury to the other party resulting from permitting the first party to contradict or repudiate the admission, statement, or act." Crown Plaza Corp. v. Synapse Software Sys., Inc., 87 Wash.App. 495, 502 , 962 P.2d 824 (1997) (citing Emrich v. Connell, 105 Wash.2d 551, 559 , 716 P.2d 863 (1986)). 2000"It requires three elements: (1) an admission, statement, or act inconsistent with the claim afterward asserted, (2) action by the other party on the faith of the admission, statement, or act, and (3) injury to the other party resulting from permitting the first party to contradict or repudiate the admission, statement, or act." Crown Plaza Corp. v. Synapse Software Sys., Inc., 87 Wash.App. 495, 502 , 962 P.2d 824 (1997) (citing Emrich v. Connell, 105 Wash.2d 551, 559 , 716 P.2d 863 (1986)). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Wilson v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.
green
2 sentences1986Corp., 85 Wn.2d 78, 81 , 530 P.2d 298 (1975). 1986Corp., 85 Wn.2d 78, 81 , 530 P.2d 298 (1975). | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Nelson v. Bailey
green
2 sentences1970Kessinger v. Anderson, 31 Wn.2d 157 , 196 P.2d 289 (1948); Nelson v. Bailey, 54 Wn.2d 161 , 338 P.2d 757 , 73 A.L.R.2d 1400 (1959). 1970Kessinger v. Anderson, 31 Wn.2d 157 , 196 P.2d 289 (1948); Nelson v. Bailey, 54 Wn.2d 161 , 338 P.2d 757 , 73 A.L.R.2d 1400 (1959). | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Kessinger v. Anderson
green
2 sentences1970Kessinger v. Anderson, 31 Wn.2d 157 , 196 P.2d 289 (1948); Nelson v. Bailey, 54 Wn.2d 161 , 338 P.2d 757 , 73 A.L.R.2d 1400 (1959). 1970Kessinger v. Anderson, 31 Wn.2d 157 , 196 P.2d 289 (1948); Nelson v. Bailey, 54 Wn.2d 161 , 338 P.2d 757 , 73 A.L.R.2d 1400 (1959). | 1 | 1970–1970 |