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.
6 California opinions name it 2 courts 1922–2008 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
City of Long Beach v. Mansellgreen2 sentences2007General Principles “The venerable doctrine of equitable estoppel or estoppel in pais, which rests firmly upon a foundation of conscience and fair dealing, [fn. omitted] finds its classical statement in the words of Lord Denman: ‘[T]he rule of law is clear, that, where one by his words or conduct wilfully causes another to believe the existence of a certain state of things, and induces him to act on that belief, so as to alter his own previous position, the former is [precluded] from averring against the latter a different state of things as existing at the same time . . . .’ [Citation.]” (City 2007General Principles “The venerable doctrine of equitable estoppel or estoppel in pais, which rests firmly upon a foundation of conscience and fair dealing, [fn. omitted] finds its classical statement in the words of Lord Denman: ‘[T]he rule of law is clear, that, where one by his words or conduct wilfully causes another to believe the existence of a certain state of things, and induces him to act on that belief, so as to alter his own previous position, the former is [precluded] from averring against the latter a different state of things as existing at the same time . . . .’ [Citation.]” (City | 3 | 3 |
Driscoll v. City of Los Angelesgreen2 sentences1984As was explained in City of Long Beach v. Mansell (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 462, 488 [ 91 Cal.Rptr. 23 , 476 P.2d 423 ]: “The venerable doctrine of equitable estoppel or estoppel in pais, . . . rests firmly upon a foundation of conscience and fair dealing, . . . [t] As we pointed out in the recent case of Driscoll v. City of Los Angeles (1967) 67 Cal.2d 297, at p. 305 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 661 , 431 P.2d 245 ], ‘Generally speaking, four elements must be present in order to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel: (1) the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts; (2) he must intend that his conduct 1984As was explained in City of Long Beach v. Mansell (1970) 3 Cal. 3d 462, 488 [ 91 Cal.Rptr. 23 , 476 P.2d 423 ]: “The venerable doctrine of equitable estoppel or estoppel in pais, . . . rests firmly upon a foundation of conscience and fair dealing, . . . [t] As we pointed out in the recent case of Driscoll v. City of Los Angeles (1967) 67 Cal.2d 297, at p. 305 [ 61 Cal.Rptr. 661 , 431 P.2d 245 ], ‘Generally speaking, four elements must be present in order to apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel: (1) the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts; (2) he must intend that his conduct | 3 | 3 |
Feduniak v. California Coastal Commissiongreen2 sentences2008(In re J.L. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1010 , 1024 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 27 ].) “ ‘The venerable doctrine of equitable estoppel or estoppel in pais, which rests firmly upon a foundation of conscience and fair dealing, [fn. omitted] finds its classical statement in the words of Lord Denman: “[T]he rule of law is clear, that, where one by his words or conduct wilfully causes another to believe the existence of a certain state of things, and induces him to act on that belief, so as to alter his own previous position, the former is [precluded] from averring against the latter a different state of things as 2008(In re J.L. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1010 , 1024 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 27 ].) “ ‘The venerable doctrine of equitable estoppel or estoppel in pais, which rests firmly upon a foundation of conscience and fair dealing, [fn. omitted] finds its classical statement in the words of Lord Denman: “[T]he rule of law is clear, that, where one by his words or conduct wilfully causes another to believe the existence of a certain state of things, and induces him to act on that belief, so as to alter his own previous position, the former is [precluded] from averring against the latter a different state of things as | 1 | 1 |
Delger v. Jacobsgreen2 sentences1922(See Burk v. City of Santa Cruz, 163 Cal. 807, 810, 811 [ 127 Pac. 154 ]; Clarke v. Huber, 25 Cal. 593 ; Chapman v. Hughes, 134 Cal. 641 [ 58 Pac. 298 , 60 Pac. 974 , 66 Pac. 982 ]; Delger v. Jacobs, 19 Cal. App. 197, 206 [ 125 Pac. 258 ].) We are now brought to the consideration of the appeal by the Lake Tahoe Railway & Transportation Company. 1922(See Burk v. City of Santa Cruz, 163 Cal. 807, 810, 811 [ 127 Pac. 154 ]; Clarke v. Huber, 25 Cal. 593 ; Chapman v. Hughes, 134 Cal. 641 [ 58 Pac. 298 , 60 Pac. 974 , 66 Pac. 982 ]; Delger v. Jacobs, 19 Cal. App. 197, 206 [ 125 Pac. 258 ].) We are now brought to the consideration of the appeal by the Lake Tahoe Railway & Transportation Company. | 1 | 1 |
Burk v. City of Santa Cruzgreen2 sentences1922(See Burk v. City of Santa Cruz, 163 Cal. 807, 810, 811 [ 127 Pac. 154 ]; Clarke v. Huber, 25 Cal. 593 ; Chapman v. Hughes, 134 Cal. 641 [ 58 Pac. 298 , 60 Pac. 974 , 66 Pac. 982 ]; Delger v. Jacobs, 19 Cal. App. 197, 206 [ 125 Pac. 258 ].) We are now brought to the consideration of the appeal by the Lake Tahoe Railway & Transportation Company. 1922(See Burk v. City of Santa Cruz, 163 Cal. 807, 810, 811 [ 127 Pac. 154 ]; Clarke v. Huber, 25 Cal. 593 ; Chapman v. Hughes, 134 Cal. 641 [ 58 Pac. 298 , 60 Pac. 974 , 66 Pac. 982 ]; Delger v. Jacobs, 19 Cal. App. 197, 206 [ 125 Pac. 258 ].) We are now brought to the consideration of the appeal by the Lake Tahoe Railway & Transportation Company. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
In Re JL
red
2 sentences2008(In re J.L. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1010 , 1024 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 27 ].) “ ‘The venerable doctrine of equitable estoppel or estoppel in pais, which rests firmly upon a foundation of conscience and fair dealing, [fn. omitted] finds its classical statement in the words of Lord Denman: “[T]he rule of law is clear, that, where one by his words or conduct wilfully causes another to believe the existence of a certain state of things, and induces him to act on that belief, so as to alter his own previous position, the former is [precluded] from averring against the latter a different state of things as 2008(In re J.L. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1010 , 1024 [ 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 27 ].) “ ‘The venerable doctrine of equitable estoppel or estoppel in pais, which rests firmly upon a foundation of conscience and fair dealing, [fn. omitted] finds its classical statement in the words of Lord Denman: “[T]he rule of law is clear, that, where one by his words or conduct wilfully causes another to believe the existence of a certain state of things, and induces him to act on that belief, so as to alter his own previous position, the former is [precluded] from averring against the latter a different state of things as | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Seymour v. Oelrichs
green
2 sentences1970The venerable doctrine of equitable estoppel or estoppel in pais, which rests firmly upon a foundation of conscience and fair dealing, 22 finds its classical statement in the words of Lord Denman: “[T]he rule of law is clear, that, where one by his words or conduct wilfully causes another to believe the existence of a certain state of things, and induces him to act on that belief, so as to alter his own previous position, the former is concluded from averring against the latter a different state of things as existing at the same time; . . .” (Pickard v. Sears & Barrett (K.B. 1837) 6 Ad. & Ell. 1970The venerable doctrine of equitable estoppel or estoppel in pais, which rests firmly upon a foundation of conscience and fair dealing, 22 finds its classical statement in the words of Lord Denman: “[T]he rule of law is clear, that, where one by his words or conduct wilfully causes another to believe the existence of a certain state of things, and induces him to act on that belief, so as to alter his own previous position, the former is concluded from averring against the latter a different state of things as existing at the same time; . . .” (Pickard v. Sears & Barrett (K.B. 1837) 6 Ad. & Ell. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Chapman v. Hughes
green
2 sentences1922(See Burk v. City of Santa Cruz, 163 Cal. 807, 810, 811 [ 127 Pac. 154 ]; Clarke v. Huber, 25 Cal. 593 ; Chapman v. Hughes, 134 Cal. 641 [ 58 Pac. 298 , 60 Pac. 974 , 66 Pac. 982 ]; Delger v. Jacobs, 19 Cal. App. 197, 206 [ 125 Pac. 258 ].) We are now brought to the consideration of the appeal by the Lake Tahoe Railway & Transportation Company. 1922(See Burk v. City of Santa Cruz, 163 Cal. 807, 810, 811 [ 127 Pac. 154 ]; Clarke v. Huber, 25 Cal. 593 ; Chapman v. Hughes, 134 Cal. 641 [ 58 Pac. 298 , 60 Pac. 974 , 66 Pac. 982 ]; Delger v. Jacobs, 19 Cal. App. 197, 206 [ 125 Pac. 258 ].) We are now brought to the consideration of the appeal by the Lake Tahoe Railway & Transportation Company. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
Clarke v. Huber
neutral
1 sentence1922(See Burk v. City of Santa Cruz, 163 Cal. 807, 810, 811 [ 127 Pac. 154 ]; Clarke v. Huber, 25 Cal. 593 ; Chapman v. Hughes, 134 Cal. 641 [ 58 Pac. 298 , 60 Pac. 974 , 66 Pac. 982 ]; Delger v. Jacobs, 19 Cal. App. 197, 206 [ 125 Pac. 258 ].) We are now brought to the consideration of the appeal by the Lake Tahoe Railway & Transportation Company. | 1 | 1922–1922 |
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.