party invoking defense (Delaware) · Go Syfert
← Delaware issues

party invoking defense in Delaware

6 Delaware opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2026 4 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Delaware 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Frank v. Wilson & Co.green
del · 1943 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026
1 sentence

2026The doctrine of equitable estoppel arises “when a party by his conduct intentionally or unintentionally leads another, in reliance upon that conduct, to change position to his detriment.”71 The party invoking the doctrine must show: (i) they lacked knowledge or the means of obtaining knowledge of the truth of the facts in question; (ii) they reasonably relied on the conduct of the party against whom estoppel is claimed; and (iii) they suffered a prejudicial change of position as a result of their reliance.72 All three elements are satisfied here. 70 See Frank v. Wilson & Co., 32 A.2d 277, 282

11
Klaassen v. Allegro Development Corp.green
del · 2014 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023
1 sentence

2023Corp., 106 A.3d 1035, 1047 (Del. 2014). 216 XRI Inv.

11
Bowne of New York City, Inc. v. AmBase Corp.green
nysd · 1993 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
1 sentence

2014Va. 2004) (“The finding of inadequacy [of descriptions in Rambus‟ privilege log], particularly in light of Rambus‟ earlier discovery and litigation misconduct, conceptually is sufficient to warrant a finding that the privileges have been waived.”); Bowne of New York City v. AmBase Corp., 150 F.R.D. 465, 474 (S.D.N.Y. 1993) (“[I]f the party invoking the privilege does not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate fulfillment of all the legal requirements for application of the privilege, his claim will be rejected.”), quoted with approval in U.S. v. Constr.

11
Maldonado v. Flynngreen
delch · 1980 · cited in 1 Delaware opinions naming this issue, 1985–1985
1 sentence

1985See, e.g., Maldonado v. Flynn, Del.Ch., 417 A.2d 378, 383 (1980); Rumsey Electric Co. v. University of Delaware, Del.Super., 334 A.2d 226 (1975).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Delaware. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Clements v. Rogers green
delch · 2001
2 sentences

2022The party invoking the defense of acquiescence must prove that the party asserting the claim “by words or deed, has acknowledged the legitimacy of the defendants’ conduct.” Clements v. Rogers, 790 A.2d 1222 , 1238 n.46 (Del.

2022The party invoking the defense of acquiescence must prove that the party asserting the claim “by words or deed, has acknowledged the legitimacy of the defendants’ conduct.” Clements v. Rogers, 790 A.2d 1222 , 1238 n.46 (Del.

22022–2022
Rumsey Electric Co. v. University of Delaware green
delsuperct · 1975
1 sentence

1985See, e.g., Maldonado v. Flynn, Del.Ch., 417 A.2d 378, 383 (1980); Rumsey Electric Co. v. University of Delaware, Del.Super., 334 A.2d 226 (1975).

11985–1985

Where else courts name it

IL 47 (1970–2026) TX 33 (1908–2023) CA 32 (1958–2026) TN 29 (1999–2026) LA 28 (1942–2013) NY 27 (1923–2024) PA 21 (1933–2026) VT 13 (1990–2025) NM 12 (1989–2023) NJ 12 (1979–2026) MO 10 (1898–2019) DC 8 (1971–2025) MA 7 (1988–2025) FL 7 (1997–2023) CT 7 (1991–2017) GA 6 (2006–2017) AZ 6 (1968–2022) MN 6 (1941–2024) OH 6 (1967–2025) DE 6 (1985–2026) OK 5 (1989–2000) AL 5 (1880–2013) MD 5 (1972–2012) MT 5 (1931–2011) WA 5 (1912–2018) NE 5 (1949–1993) NC 5 (1905–2006) IA 4 (1991–2023) MS 4 (1991–2001) IN 4 (1915–2015) MI 3 (1965–2000) KS 3 (2003–2026) KY 3 (2002–2022) WY 3 (1997–2002) OR 3 (2011–2022) UT 3 (1992–2026) ME 2 (2018–2018) AR 2 (1948–1972) SC 2 (1977–2007) VA 2 (1908–2005)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check