equitable estoppel is codified doctrine (North Dakota) · Go Syfert
← North Dakota issues

equitable estoppel is codified doctrine in North Dakota

6 North Dakota opinions name it 1 courts 1994–2013 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by North Dakota 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Douglass v. Douglassgreen
okla · 1947 · cited in 2 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
2 sentences

2004Co. , supra , 404 N.W.2d at 507 [quoting Douglass v. Douglass , 199 Okl. 519 , 188 P.2d 221, 224 (1947)]. [¶19] The doctrine of equitable estoppel is codified in N.D.C.C. § 31-11-06, which provides that “[w]hen a party, by that party’s own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately has led another to believe a particular thing true and to act upon such belief, that party shall not be permitted to falsify it in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act, or omission.” To successfully implement equitable estoppel under N.D.C.C. § 31-11-06, the plaintiff carries the bu

2004Co. , supra , 404 N.W.2d at 507 [quoting Douglass v. Douglass , 199 Okl. 519 , 188 P.2d 221, 224 (1947)]. [¶19] The doctrine of equitable estoppel is codified in N.D.C.C. § 31-11-06, which provides that “[w]hen a party, by that party’s own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately has led another to believe a particular thing true and to act upon such belief, that party shall not be permitted to falsify it in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act, or omission.” To successfully implement equitable estoppel under N.D.C.C. § 31-11-06, the plaintiff carries the bu

22
Farmers Cooperative Ass'n of Churchs Ferry v. Colegreen
nd · 1976 · cited in 1 North Dakota opinions naming this issue, 1994–1994
2 sentences

1994Ass'n v. Cole, 239 N.W.2d 808, 813 (N.D.1976) (quoting Robert A. Brazener, Annotation, Comment Note—Promissory Estoppel as Basis for Avoidance of Statute of Frauds, 56 A.L.R.3d 1037 , 1041 (1974)).

1994Ass’n v. Cole, 239 N.W.2d 808, 813 (N.D.1976) (quoting Robert A. Brazener, Annotation, Comment Note — Promissory Estoppel as Basis for Avoidance of Statute of Frauds, 56 A.L.R.3d 1037 , 1041 (1974)).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (8)

CaseCitedYears
Benson v. SRT Communications, Inc. green
nd · 2012
2 sentences

2013Benson v. SRT Commc’ns, Inc. , 2012 ND 58 , ¶ 27, 813 N.W.2d 552.

2013Benson v. SRT Commc’ns, Inc., 2012 ND 58 , ¶ 27, 813 N.W.2d 552 .

22013–2013
Benson v. SRT Communications, Inc. green
nd · 2012
2 sentences

2013Benson v. SRT Commc’ns, Inc. , 2012 ND 58 , ¶ 27, 813 N.W.2d 552.

2013Benson v. SRT Commc’ns, Inc., 2012 ND 58 , ¶ 27, 813 N.W.2d 552 .

22013–2013
Szarkowski v. Reliance Insurance Co. green
nd · 1987
2 sentences

2004Co., supra, 404 N.W.2d at 507 [quoting Douglass v. Douglass, 199 Okl. 519 , 188 P.2d 221, 224 (1947) ]. [¶ 19] The doctrine of equitable estoppel is codified in N.D.C.C. § 31 — 11— 06, which provides that “[w]hen a party, by that party’s own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately has led another to believe a particular thing true and to act upon such belief, that party shall not be permitted to falsify it in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act, or omission.” To successfully implement equitable estoppel under N.D.C.C. § 31-11-06, the plaintiff carries the

2004Co. , supra , 404 N.W.2d at 507 [quoting Douglass v. Douglass , 199 Okl. 519 , 188 P.2d 221, 224 (1947)]. [¶19] The doctrine of equitable estoppel is codified in N.D.C.C. § 31-11-06, which provides that “[w]hen a party, by that party’s own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately has led another to believe a particular thing true and to act upon such belief, that party shall not be permitted to falsify it in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act, or omission.” To successfully implement equitable estoppel under N.D.C.C. § 31-11-06, the plaintiff carries the bu

22004–2004
Erickson v. Brown green
nd · 2012
1 sentence

2012III [¶24] Miller argues that principles of equitable estoppel, promissory estoppel and waiver preclude the District from now ordering removal of his dikes. [¶25] The doctrine of equitable estoppel is codified in N.D.C.C. § 31-11-06, which provides: When a party, by that party’s own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately has led another to believe a particular thing true and to act upon such belief, that party shall not be permitted to falsify it in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act, or omission. [¶26] The elements of promissory estoppel are: “‘(1) a pro

12012–2012
Dalan v. Paracelsus Healthcare Corp. of North Dakota green
nd · 2002
2 sentences

2012III [¶24] Miller argues that principles of equitable estoppel, promissory estoppel and waiver preclude the District from now ordering removal of his dikes. [¶25] The doctrine of equitable estoppel is codified in N.D.C.C. § 31-11-06, which provides: When a party, by that party’s own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately has led another to believe a particular thing true and to act upon such belief, that party shall not be permitted to falsify it in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act, or omission. [¶26] The elements of promissory estoppel are: “‘(1) a pro

2012III [¶24] Miller argues that principles of equitable estoppel, promissory estoppel and waiver preclude the District from now ordering removal of his dikes. [¶25] The doctrine of equitable estoppel is codified in N.D.C.C. § 31-11-06, which provides: When a party, by that party’s own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately has led another to believe a particular thing true and to act upon such belief, that party shall not be permitted to falsify it in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act, or omission. [¶26] The elements of promissory estoppel are: “‘(1) a pro

12012–2012
First International Bank & Trust v. Peterson green
nd · 2009
2 sentences

2012III [¶24] Miller argues that principles of equitable estoppel, promissory estoppel and waiver preclude the District from now ordering removal of his dikes. [¶25] The doctrine of equitable estoppel is codified in N.D.C.C. § 31-11-06, which provides: When a party, by that party’s own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately has led another to believe a particular thing true and to act upon such belief, that party shall not be permitted to falsify it in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act, or omission. [¶26] The elements of promissory estoppel are: “‘(1) a pro

2012III [¶24] Miller argues that principles of equitable estoppel, promissory estoppel and waiver preclude the District from now ordering removal of his dikes. [¶25] The doctrine of equitable estoppel is codified in N.D.C.C. § 31-11-06, which provides: When a party, by that party’s own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately has led another to believe a particular thing true and to act upon such belief, that party shall not be permitted to falsify it in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act, or omission. [¶26] The elements of promissory estoppel are: “‘(1) a pro

12012–2012
Erickson v. Brown green
nd · 2012
1 sentence

2012III [¶24] Miller argues that principles of equitable estoppel, promissory estoppel and waiver preclude the District from now ordering removal of his dikes. [¶25] The doctrine of equitable estoppel is codified in N.D.C.C. § 31-11-06, which provides: When a party, by that party’s own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately has led another to believe a particular thing true and to act upon such belief, that party shall not be permitted to falsify it in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act, or omission. [¶26] The elements of promissory estoppel are: “‘(1) a pro

12012–2012
Hellbaum v. Burwell & Morford green
washctapp · 1969
1 sentence

1994Ass'n v. Cole, 239 N.W.2d 808, 813 (N.D.1976) (quoting Robert A. Brazener, Annotation, Comment Note—Promissory Estoppel as Basis for Avoidance of Statute of Frauds, 56 A.L.R.3d 1037 , 1041 (1974)).

11994–1994

Statutes the citing opinions construe

ND § N.D. Cent. Code § 31-11-06 (6)

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.

Where else courts name it

ND 6 (1994–2013) CA 5 (2013–2022)

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