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 Texas opinions name it 1 courts 1946–2010 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cleaver v. Cundiffgreen2 sentences2010Easement by Estoppel The doctrine of equitable estoppel or estoppel in pais is an exception to the statute of frauds; [8] Cleaver v. Cundiff , 203 S.W.3d 373, 375 (Tex.App.--Eastland 2006, no pet.), and, "[b]eing a creature of equity, it seeks to prevent injustice and to protect innocent parties from fraud." Storms v. Tuck , 579 S.W.2d 447, 451 (Tex. 1979). 2010Easement by Estoppel The doctrine of equitable estoppel or estoppel in pais is an exception to the statute of frauds;[8] Cleaver v. Cundiff, 203 S.W.3d 373, 375 (Tex.App.--Eastland 2006, no pet.), and, "[b]eing a creature of equity, it seeks to prevent injustice and to protect innocent parties from fraud." Storms v. Tuck, 579 S.W.2d 447, 451 (Tex. 1979). | 3 | 3 |
Storms v. Tuckgreen2 sentences2010Easement by Estoppel The doctrine of equitable estoppel or estoppel in pais is an exception to the statute of frauds; [8] Cleaver v. Cundiff , 203 S.W.3d 373, 375 (Tex.App.--Eastland 2006, no pet.), and, "[b]eing a creature of equity, it seeks to prevent injustice and to protect innocent parties from fraud." Storms v. Tuck , 579 S.W.2d 447, 451 (Tex. 1979). 2010Easement by Estoppel The doctrine of equitable estoppel or estoppel in pais is an exception to the statute of frauds;[8] Cleaver v. Cundiff, 203 S.W.3d 373, 375 (Tex.App.--Eastland 2006, no pet.), and, "[b]eing a creature of equity, it seeks to prevent injustice and to protect innocent parties from fraud." Storms v. Tuck, 579 S.W.2d 447, 451 (Tex. 1979). | 3 | 3 |
Wallace v. McKinziegreen1 sentence2004“The doctrine of equitable estoppel or estoppel in pais is grounded on the condition that justice forbids one to gainsay his own acts or assertions.” Wallace v. McKinzie , 869 S.W.2d 592, 595 (Tex. App.–Amarillo 1993, writ denied). | 1 | 1 |
Campbell v. Pirtlegreen2 sentences1993See Campbell v. Pirtle, 790 S.W.2d 372, 374 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1990, writ denied). 1993See Campbell v. Pirtle, 790 S.W.2d 372, 374 (Tex.App.—Amarillo 1990, writ denied). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lockhart State Bank v. Baker
neutral
1 sentence1946This rule is known as the doctrine of equitable estoppel or estoppel in pais, which terms many modern authorities use interchangeably. 31 C.J.S., Estoppel, § 59, p. 240; 19 Am.Jur. 633, 634, §§ 33 and 34; and Lockhart State Bank v. Baker, Tex.Civ.App., 264 S.W. 566 . | 1 | 1946–1946 |
City of Eureka v. Kansas Electric Power Co.
neutral
2 sentences1946City of Eureka v. Kansas Electric Power Co., 133 Kan. 238 , 299 P. 938 ; Id., 133 Kan. 708 , 3 P.2d 484 . 1946City of Eureka v. Kansas Electric Power Co., 133 Kan. 238 , 299 P. 938 ; Id., 133 Kan. 708 , 3 P.2d 484 . | 1 | 1946–1946 |
City of Eureka v. Kansas Electric Power Co.
neutral
2 sentences1946City of Eureka v. Kansas Electric Power Co., 133 Kan. 238 , 299 P. 938 ; Id., 133 Kan. 708 , 3 P.2d 484 . 1946City of Eureka v. Kansas Electric Power Co., 133 Kan. 238 , 299 P. 938 ; Id., 133 Kan. 708 , 3 P.2d 484 . | 1 | 1946–1946 |
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.