65 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1910–2024 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Concerned Land Owners of Union Hill v. King Countygreen2 sentences2000See Concerned Land Owners, 64 Wash.App. at 778 , 827 P.2d 1017 . 2000See Concerned Land Owners, 64 Wash.App. at 778 , 827 P.2d 1017 . | 2 | 4 |
Department of Ecology v. Theodoratusgreen2 sentences2000See Theodoratus, 135 Wash.2d at 599-600 , 957 P.2d 1241 ; Chemical Bank, 102 Wash.2d at 905 , 691 P.2d 524 ; Concerned Land Owners, 64 Wash.App. at 778 , 827 P.2d 1017 . 1999To succeed on an equitable estoppel claim, a party must prove by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence “(1) an admission, statement or act inconsistent with a claim later asserted; (2) reasonable reliance on that admission, statement, or act by the other party; and (3) injury to the relying party if the court permits the first party to contradict or repudiate the admission, statement or act.” Department of Ecology v. Theodoratus, 135 Wn.2d 582, 599 , 957 P.2d 1241 (1998). | 2 | 3 |
Motley-Motley, Inc. v. Pollution Control Hearings Boardgreen2 sentences2018Accordingly, Motley’s assertion of an equitable estoppel defense did not convert the proceeding before PCHB into an equitable action.” Motley-Motley, 127 Wn. 2018On appeal, in its examination of whether the equitable estoppel claim was an equitable cause of action properly heard for the first time in superior court, Division Three of this court relied on the principle that “[e]quitable estoppel is available only as a shield, or defense; it is not available as a sword, or cause of action.” Motley-Motley, 127 Wn. | 2 | 2 |
Covert v. Crossgreen2 sentences2005Lawler, 569 F.2d at 1291 . ¶25 The Missouri Supreme Court similarly refused to allow an equitable estoppel defense in Covert v. Cross, 331 S.W.2d 576, 585 (Mo. 1960). 2 The facts in Covert were similar to Royal Air in that the defendants wanted to present evidence that plaintiffs allegedly waited to find out that certain oil wells were unproductive before electing to rescind the unregistered securities they had purchased relating to the oil leases. 2005The Act was passed to protect investors against their own weaknesses and to prevent the happening of such losses as are shown by this record.” Covert, 331 S.W.2d at 585 . ¶[26 The concerns expressed in Covert were cited and echoed by the dissent in Logan which expressed the view that the adoption of an equitable estoppel defense severely undermines the legislation regulating the sale of securities: The very person sought to be protected, the investor, is denied recovery while the individual violating the law escapes liability. | 2 | 2 |
In RE MARRIAGE OF ULRICH v. Cornellgreen2 sentences2001The Court warned, however, that the doctrine must be applied “ ‘cautiously.’ ” In re the Marriage of Ulrich, 168 Wis. 2d 792 , 484 N.W.2d 545, 547 (1992) (quoting Ulrich v. Cornell, 162 Wis. 2d 462 , 469 N.W.2d 890, 894 (Ct. App. 1991)). 2001The Court warned, however, that the doctrine must be applied “ ‘cautiously.’ ” In re the Marriage of Ulrich, 168 Wis. 2d 792 , 484 N.W.2d 545, 547 (1992) (quoting Ulrich v. Cornell, 162 Wis. 2d 462 , 469 N.W.2d 890, 894 (Ct. App. 1991)). | 2 | 2 |
cluster 507099green2 sentences2000Oneida, 848 F.2d at 417 (“The result of a failure to disclose such claims triggers application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel, operating against a subsequent attempt to prosecute the actions.”); Heritage Hotel, 160 B.R. at 379 (‘We hold that the failure to disclose any potential lender liability claims . .. during the pendency of the bankruptcy case equitably estops [the debtor] from subsequently asserting such claims.”). 2000See also Sprague v. Sysco Corp., 97 Wash.App. 169 , 180 n. 4, 982 P.2d 1202 (1999) (noting but declining to apply judicial estoppel), review denied, 140 Wash.2d 1004 , 999 P.2d 1262 (2000). [11] Oneida, 848 F.2d at 417 ("The result of a failure to disclose such claims triggers application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel, operating against a subsequent attempt to prosecute the actions."); Heritage Hotel, 160 B.R. at 379 ("We hold that the failure to disclose any potential lender liability claims ... during the pendency of the bankruptcy case equitably estops [the debtor] from subsequently | 2 | 2 |
Heritage Hotel Ltd. Partnership I v. Valley Bank of Nevada (In Re Heritage Hotel Partnership I)green2 sentences2000Oneida, 848 F.2d at 417 (“The result of a failure to disclose such claims triggers application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel, operating against a subsequent attempt to prosecute the actions.”); Heritage Hotel, 160 B.R. at 379 (‘We hold that the failure to disclose any potential lender liability claims . .. during the pendency of the bankruptcy case equitably estops [the debtor] from subsequently asserting such claims.”). 2000See also Sprague v. Sysco Corp., 97 Wash.App. 169 , 180 n. 4, 982 P.2d 1202 (1999) (noting but declining to apply judicial estoppel), review denied, 140 Wash.2d 1004 , 999 P.2d 1262 (2000). [11] Oneida, 848 F.2d at 417 ("The result of a failure to disclose such claims triggers application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel, operating against a subsequent attempt to prosecute the actions."); Heritage Hotel, 160 B.R. at 379 ("We hold that the failure to disclose any potential lender liability claims ... during the pendency of the bankruptcy case equitably estops [the debtor] from subsequently | 2 | 2 |
Wright v. Stategreen2 sentences2000Wright v. State, 824 P.2d 718, 721 (Alaska 1992) (“[Q]uasi estoppel was properly applied because Wright’s lawsuit is not consistent with his bankruptcy position.”). 2000See also Sprague v. Sysco Corp., 97 Wash.App. 169 , 180 n. 4, 982 P.2d 1202 (1999) (noting but declining to apply judicial estoppel), review denied, 140 Wash.2d 1004 , 999 P.2d 1262 (2000). [11] Oneida, 848 F.2d at 417 ("The result of a failure to disclose such claims triggers application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel, operating against a subsequent attempt to prosecute the actions."); Heritage Hotel, 160 B.R. at 379 ("We hold that the failure to disclose any potential lender liability claims ... during the pendency of the bankruptcy case equitably estops [the debtor] from subsequently | 2 | 2 |
Silverstreak, Inc. v. Department of Labor & Industriesgreen2 sentences2024See Silverstreak, 159 Wn.2d at 887 (enumerating the five required elements of an equitable estoppel defense). 21 No. 85660-0-I/22 Glacier argues that the director’s order unconstitutionally impaired its contractual obligations with STP by imposing “new law and standards” contrary to the existing law contemplated at its signing which “did not apply prevailing wage to the acceptance of excavated dirt at offsite disposal pits.” Both the United States and Washington constitutions prohibit laws that impair the obligations of contracts. 2020The superior court agreed with the Department on both of these claims and Wilson does not disagree. -10- No. 79867-7-I/11 party who has justifiably and in good faith relied.” Silverstreak, Inc. v. Washington State Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 159 Wn.2d 868, 887 , 154 P.3d 891 (2007). | 1 | 2 |
State, Dept. of Ecology v. Theodoratusgreen2 sentences2000See Theodoratus, 135 Wash.2d at 599-600 , 957 P.2d 1241 ; Chemical Bank, 102 Wash.2d at 905 , 691 P.2d 524 ; Concerned Land Owners, 64 Wash.App. at 778 , 827 P.2d 1017 . 1999To succeed on an equitable estoppel claim, a party must prove by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence “(1) an admission, statement or act inconsistent with a claim later asserted; (2) reasonable reliance on that admission, statement, or act by the other party; and (3) injury to the relying party if the court permits the first party to contradict or repudiate the admission, statement or act.” Department of Ecology v. Theodoratus, 135 Wn.2d 582, 599 , 957 P.2d 1241 (1998). | 1 | 2 |
| Sunkist Soft Drinks, Inc., Del Monte Corporation, Nabisco Brands, Inc. v. Sunkist Growers, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Lybbert v. Grant Countygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Parmelee v. Clarkegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Young v. Estate of Snellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In RE MARRIAGE OF ULRICH v. Cornellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Young v. Estate of Snellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Conrad v. Bank of Americagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Billmeyer v. Plaza Bank of Commercegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sprague v. Sysco Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Adolph Kizas v. William H. Webster, Adolph Kizas v. William H. Webstergreen | 1 | 1 |
| City and County of Denver v. Stackhousegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Automotive United Trades Organization v. State
green
2 sentences2020Laches Lastly, Stevens contends the trial court erred in rejecting his laches defense. “‘Laches consists of two elements: (1) inexcusable delay and (2) prejudice to the other party from such delay.’” 23 United Trades Org. v. State, 175 Wn.2d 537, 542 , 23 Earlier versions of laches included a third element—“knowledge or reasonable opportunity to discover on the part of a potential plaintiff that he has a cause of action against a defendant.” United - 48 - No. 77830-7-I, 77401-8-I & 78430-7-I/49 286 P.3d 377 (2012) (quoting State ex rel. 2020Laches Lastly, Stevens contends the trial court erred in rejecting his laches defense. “‘Laches consists of two elements: (1) inexcusable delay and (2) prejudice to the other party from such delay.’” 23 United Trades Org. v. State, 175 Wn.2d 537, 542 , 23 Earlier versions of laches included a third element—“knowledge or reasonable opportunity to discover on the part of a potential plaintiff that he has a cause of action against a defendant.” United - 48 - No. 77830-7-I, 77401-8-I & 78430-7-I/49 286 P.3d 377 (2012) (quoting State ex rel. | 3 | 2020–2020 |
Chemical Bank v. Washington Public Power Supply System
green
2 sentences2018First, Chemical Bank avoided addressing whether plaintiffs could maintain an equitable estoppel claim offensively because it held that even if equitable estoppel were available to plaintiffs, the claim would fail. 102 Wn.2d at 905 . 2000See Theodoratus, 135 Wash.2d at 599-600 , 957 P.2d 1241 ; Chemical Bank, 102 Wash.2d at 905 , 691 P.2d 524 ; Concerned Land Owners, 64 Wash.App. at 778 , 827 P.2d 1017 . | 3 | 2000–2018 |
Kessinger v. Anderson
green
2 sentences1969In Arnold v. Melani, 75 Wn.2d 143, 437 P.2d 908 , 449 P.2d 800 , 450 P.2d 815 (1968-69), we said, at 147: Equitable estoppel, estoppel in pais, Peplinski v. Campbell, 37 Wn.2d 857, 226 P.2d 211 (1951); estoppel by conduct, State v. Northwest Magnesite Co., 28 Wn.2d 1 , 182 P.2d 643 (1947); estoppel by misrepresentation, Kessinger v. Anderson, 31 Wn.2d 157 , 196 P.2d 289 (1948); James v. Christ Church Parish, 29 Wn.2d 103 , 185 P.2d 984 (1947), are titles given to an equitable doctrine which in general subscribes to the principle that a man shall not be permitted to deny what he has once solemn 1951In Kessinger v. Anderson, 31 Wn. (2d) 157, 196 P. (2d) 289 , we discussed the doctrine of equitable estoppel, cited our leading cases and reviewed authorities on the subject. | 3 | 1951–1969 |
Bennett v. Grays Harbor County
green
2 sentences1953In Bennett v. Grays Harbor County, 15 Wn. (2d) 331, 130 P. (2d) 1041 , we said: “The doctrine of equitable estoppel, or estoppel in pais, rests upon the principle that, where a person wrongfully or negligently by his acts or representations causes another who has a right to rely upon such acts or representations to change his condition, to his detriment or prejudice, the person performing such acts or making such representations is precluded from pleading the falsity of his acts or representations for his own advantage, or from asserting a right which he otherwise might have had. 1945In the case of Bennett v. Grays Harbor County, 15 Wn. (2d) 331, 130 P. (2d) 1041 , this court, in considering the doctrine of estoppel, said: “The doctrine of equitable estoppel, or estoppel in pais, rests upon the principle that, where a person wrongfully or negligently by his acts or representations causes another who has a right to rely upon such acts or representations to change his condition, to his detriment or prejudice, the person performing such acts or making such representations is precluded from pleading the falsity of his acts or representations for his own advantage, or from asse | 3 | 1945–1953 |
Kramarevcky v. Department of Social & Health Services
green
2 sentences2017Kramarevcky v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 122 Wn.2d 738, 750-51 , 863 P.2d 535 (1993) (An equitable estoppel claim requires establishing five elements, including injury.). 2017Kramarevcky v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 122 Wn.2d 738, 750-51 , 863 P.2d 535 (1993) (An equitable estoppel claim requires establishing five elements, including injury.). | 2 | 2016–2017 |
Sorenson v. Pyeatt
green
2 sentences2011“The second element of the three-part equitable estoppel test requires the party asserting estoppel to show that he reasonably relied to his detriment on an act, admission, or statement of the party to be estopped.” Sorenson v. Pyeatt, 158 Wn.2d 523, 540 , 146 P.3d 1172 (2006). 2011"The second element of the three-part equitable estoppel test requires the party asserting estoppel to show that he reasonably relied to his detriment on an act, admission, or statement of the party to be estopped." Sorenson v. Pyeatt, 158 Wash.2d 523, 540 , 146 P.3d 1172 (2006). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Sorenson v. Pyeatt
green
2 sentences2011“The second element of the three-part equitable estoppel test requires the party asserting estoppel to show that he reasonably relied to his detriment on an act, admission, or statement of the party to be estopped.” Sorenson v. Pyeatt, 158 Wn.2d 523, 540 , 146 P.3d 1172 (2006). 2011"The second element of the three-part equitable estoppel test requires the party asserting estoppel to show that he reasonably relied to his detriment on an act, admission, or statement of the party to be estopped." Sorenson v. Pyeatt, 158 Wash.2d 523, 540 , 146 P.3d 1172 (2006). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
US West Communications, Inc. v. Utilities & Transportation Commission
green
2 sentences2008App. 719, 728 , 937 P.2d 1326 (1997). ¶11 Here, the superior court concluded that the Board of Appeals incorrectly applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel. 2008Comm'n, 86 Wash.App. 719, 728 , 937 P.2d 1326 (1997). ¶ 11 Here, the superior court concluded that the Board of Appeals incorrectly applied the doctrine of equitable estoppel. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Joseph J. LAWLER, Trustee in Bankruptcy for Frank E. Mower, II, Appellant, v. Thomas W. GILLIAM, Jr. and General Erle Cocke, Jr., Appellees
green
2 sentences2005Lawler, 569 F.2d at 1291 . ¶25 The Missouri Supreme Court similarly refused to allow an equitable estoppel defense in Covert v. Cross, 331 S.W.2d 576, 585 (Mo. 1960). 2 The facts in Covert were similar to Royal Air in that the defendants wanted to present evidence that plaintiffs allegedly waited to find out that certain oil wells were unproductive before electing to rescind the unregistered securities they had purchased relating to the oil leases. 2005Lawler v. Gilliam, 569 F.2d at 1291 . ¶ 24 The Missouri Supreme Court similarly refused to allow an equitable estoppel defense in Covert v. Cross, 331 S.W.2d 576, 585 (Mo., 1960). [2] The facts in Covert were similar to Royal Air in that the defendants wanted to present evidence that plaintiffs allegedly waited to find out that certain oil wells were unproductive before electing to rescind the unregistered securities they had purchased relating to the oil leases. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
City of Mercer Island v. Steinmann
green
2 sentences2001In short, the court concluded that the doctrine of equitable estoppel “will not be applied where its application would interfere with the discharge of governmental duties or where the officials on whose conduct estoppel is sought to be predicated acted beyond their power.” Steinmann, 9 Wn. 2001In short, the court concluded that the doctrine of equitable estoppel "will not be applied where its application would interfere with the discharge of governmental duties or where the officials on whose conduct estoppel is sought to be predicated acted beyond their power." City of Mercer Island, 9 Wash.App. at 481 , 513 P.2d 80 . | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Emrich v. Connell
green
2 sentences2000Emrich v. Connell, 105 Wash.2d 551, 559 , 716 P.2d 863 (1986). 2000Emrich v. Connell, 105 Wash.2d 551, 559 , 716 P.2d 863 (1986). | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Hartman v. Smith
green
2 sentences1995Hartman, 100 Wash.2d at 769 , 674 P.2d 176 . 1995Hartman, 100 Wash.2d at 769 , 674 P.2d 176 . | 2 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Adams
green
2 sentences1993The Department also argued its acts of overpaying benefits should be deemed ultra vires under State v. Adams, 107 Wn.2d 611 , 732 P.2d 149 (1987), thus precluding any applica-. tion of the doctrine of equitable estoppel. 1993The Department also argued its acts of overpaying benefits should be deemed ultra vires under State v. Adams, 107 Wn.2d 611 , 732 P.2d 149 (1987), thus precluding any applica-. tion of the doctrine of equitable estoppel. | 2 | 1991–1993 |
Finch v. Matthews
green
2 sentences1988Finch v. Matthews, 74 Wn.2d 161, 172 , 443 P.2d 833 (1968). 1988Finch v. Matthews, 74 Wn.2d 161, 172 , 443 P.2d 833 (1968). | 2 | 1974–1988 |
Coy v. Raabe
green
2 sentences1977Coy v. Raabe, 77 Wn.2d 322, 326 , 462 P.2d 214 (1969). 1977Coy v. Raabe, 77 Wn.2d 322, 326 , 462 P.2d 214 (1969). | 2 | 1977–1977 |
Carruthers v. Whitney
green
2 sentences1953Carruthers v. Whitney, 56 Wash. 327 , 105 Pac. 831 ; Maxwell v. Dimond, 83 Wash. 30 , 145 Pac. 77 ; Reynolds v. Travelers Ins. 1953Carruthers v. Whitney, 56 Wash. 327 , 105 Pac. 831 ; Maxwell v. Dimond, 83 Wash. 30 , 145 Pac. 77 ; Reynolds v. Travelers Ins. | 2 | 1942–1953 |
Maxwell v. Dimond
neutral
2 sentences1953Carruthers v. Whitney, 56 Wash. 327 , 105 Pac. 831 ; Maxwell v. Dimond, 83 Wash. 30 , 145 Pac. 77 ; Reynolds v. Travelers Ins. 1953Carruthers v. Whitney, 56 Wash. 327 , 105 Pac. 831 ; Maxwell v. Dimond, 83 Wash. 30 , 145 Pac. 77 ; Reynolds v. Travelers Ins. | 2 | 1942–1953 |
Marriage Of: Donna L. Tupper (nka Hagar) v. Michael L. Tupper
green
2 sentences2024The doctrine of equitable estoppel applies when “one party has made a statement, admission, or act that has been justifiably relied on to the detriment of another party.” In re Marriage of Tupper, 15 Wn. 2024App. 2d 796, 812 , 478 P.3d 1132 (2020). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Guijosa v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Guijosa v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
ROGERS POTATO SERVICE v. Countrywide Potato
green
1 sentence2024“Even if there are several reasonable interpretations of the evidence, it is substantial if it reasonably supports the finding.” Rogers Potato Serv., LLC v. Countrywide Potato, LLC, 152 Wn.2d 387, 391 , 97 P.3d 745 (2004). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Rogers Potato Service, L.L.C. v. Countrywide Potato, L.L.C.
green
1 sentence2024“Even if there are several reasonable interpretations of the evidence, it is substantial if it reasonably supports the finding.” Rogers Potato Serv., LLC v. Countrywide Potato, LLC, 152 Wn.2d 387, 391 , 97 P.3d 745 (2004). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Pioneer National Title Insurance v. State green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Silverstreak, Inc. v. STATE DEPT. OF LABOR green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Greaves v. Medical Imaging System, Inc. green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Surabhan Ratanasen v. State of California, Department of Health Services green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Townsend v. Quadrant Corp. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Townsend v. Quadrant Corp. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Schroeder v. Excelsior Management Group, LLC green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Motley-Motley, Inc. v. State green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Schultz neutral | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Schultz green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| In re the Personal Restraint of Roach green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| In Re Roach green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Hay v. First Interstate Bank of Kalispell green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Landreville v. SHORELINE COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT NO. 7 green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Bowman v. Webster green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Eastlake Community Council v. Roanoke Associates, Inc. green | 1 | 1977–1977 |
| Shafer v. State green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Kupka v. Reid green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.