6 California opinions name it 1 courts 1987–2026 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
Tresway Aero, Inc. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2013(Tresway Aero, Inc. v. Superior Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 431, 438 ; Griffis v. S .S. 1987(Tresway Aero, Inc. v. Superior Court (1971) 5 Cal.3d 431, 438 [ 96 Cal.Rptr. 571 , 487 P.2d 1211 ]; Griffis v. S. S. Kresge Co., supra, 150 Cal.App.3d at p.498.) If a trial court finds statements or conduct by a defendant which lulls the plaintiff into a false sense of security resulting in inaction, and there is reasonable reliance, estoppel must be available to prevent defendant from profiting from his deception. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Tejada v. Blas
green
2 sentences2026“The doctrine of equitable estoppel is applicable to section 583.310 dismissal motions. [Citations.] If a trial court finds statements or conduct by a defendant which lulls the plaintiff into a false sense of security resulting in inaction, and there is reasonable reliance, estoppel must be available to prevent defendant from profiting from his deception.” (Tejada v. Blas (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1335, 1341 .) “Equitable estoppel requires that (1) the party to be estopped was aware of the operative facts and either intended that its act or omission be acted upon, or acted in such a way that the p 2015“The doctrine of equitable estoppel is applicable to section 583.310 dismissal motions. [Citations.] If a trial court finds statements or conduct by a defendant which lulls the plaintiff into a false sense of security resulting in inaction, and there is reasonable reliance, estoppel must be available to prevent defendant from profiting from his deception.” (Tejada v. Blas (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1335, 1341 .) “To establish estoppel, the plaintiff must show: ‘ “(1) The party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts; (2) he must intend that his conduct shall be acted upon, or must so act that | 4 | 1990–2026 |
Gaines v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2026“The doctrine of equitable estoppel is applicable to section 583.310 dismissal motions. [Citations.] If a trial court finds statements or conduct by a defendant which lulls the plaintiff into a false sense of security resulting in inaction, and there is reasonable reliance, estoppel must be available to prevent defendant from profiting from his deception.” (Tejada v. Blas (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1335, 1341 .) “Equitable estoppel requires that (1) the party to be estopped was aware of the operative facts and either intended that its act or omission be acted upon, or acted in such a way that the p | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Cuadros v. Superior Court
green
1 sentence2026In order to invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel, the reliance must be reasonable.” (Brown v. Chiang (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1203, 1227 .) “The determination of whether a defendant’s conduct is sufficient to invoke the doctrine is a factual question entrusted to the trial court’s discretion. [Citation.] The issue is whether, viewing the evidence and all the inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the defendants, there was substantial evidence upon which the court could reasonably have found as it did.” (Cuadros v. Superior Court (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 671, 675 .) Anand contends C | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Brown v. Chiang
green
1 sentence2026In order to invoke the doctrine of equitable estoppel, the reliance must be reasonable.” (Brown v. Chiang (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1203, 1227 .) “The determination of whether a defendant’s conduct is sufficient to invoke the doctrine is a factual question entrusted to the trial court’s discretion. [Citation.] The issue is whether, viewing the evidence and all the inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the defendants, there was substantial evidence upon which the court could reasonably have found as it did.” (Cuadros v. Superior Court (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 671, 675 .) Anand contends C | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Biss v. Bohr
green
1 sentence2015“The doctrine of equitable estoppel is applicable to section 583.310 dismissal motions. [Citations.] If a trial court finds statements or conduct by a defendant which lulls the plaintiff into a false sense of security resulting in inaction, and there is reasonable reliance, estoppel must be available to prevent defendant from profiting from his deception.” (Tejada v. Blas (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1335, 1341 .) “To establish estoppel, the plaintiff must show: ‘ “(1) The party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts; (2) he must intend that his conduct shall be acted upon, or must so act that | 1 | 2015–2015 |