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.
44 Connecticut opinions name it 3 courts 1985–2012 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Connecticut 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 |
|---|---|---|
Dupuis v. Submarine Base Credit Union, Inc.green2 sentences2007As noted, this exception applies where the party claiming estoppel would be subjected to substantial loss if the public agency were permitted to negate the acts of its agents.” (Citations omitted.) Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Dubno, 204 Conn. *727 137, 148, 527 A.2d 679 (1987); see also Dupuis v. Submarine Base Credit Union, Inc., 170 Conn. 344, 354 , 365 A.2d 1093 (1976) (application of equitable estoppel against government agency is “limited and invoked [1] only with great caution, [2] only when the resulting violation has been unjustifiably induced by an agent having authority in such matters, 2007As noted, this exception applies where the party claiming estoppel would be subjected to substantial loss if the public agency were permitted to negate the acts of its agents.” (Citations omitted.) Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Dubno, 204 Conn. *727 137, 148, 527 A.2d 679 (1987); see also Dupuis v. Submarine Base Credit Union, Inc., 170 Conn. 344, 354 , 365 A.2d 1093 (1976) (application of equitable estoppel against government agency is “limited and invoked [1] only with great caution, [2] only when the resulting violation has been unjustifiably induced by an agent having authority in such matters, | 5 | 11 |
Gelinas v. Town of West Hartfordgreen2 sentences1999"Estoppel against municipalities is . . . limited and may be invoked against the enforcement of zoning regulations (1) only with great caution, (2) only when the resulting violation has been unjustifiably induced by an agent having authority in such matters, and (3) only when special circumstances make it highly inequitable or oppressive to enforce the regulations, Gelinas v. West Hartford, 225 Conn. 575 , 590 (citation omitted). 1996"The law of equitable estoppel as applied to municipalities in the enforcement of zoning laws is well established. . . . `[I]n special circumstances, a municipality may be estopped from enforcing its zoning regulations.' . . . `[A]lthough estoppel may not generally be invoked against a public agency in the I exercise of its governmental functions . . . an exception is made where the party claiming estoppel would be subjected to a substantial loss if the municipality were permitted to negate the acts of its agents . . . [Accordingly, . . . estoppel] against municipalities is . . . limited and m | 5 | 9 |
Town of West Hartford v. Rechelgreen2 sentences2003In zoning matters, estoppel is available "(1) only with great caution, (2) only when the resulting violation has been unjustifiably induced by an agent having authority in such matters, and (3) only when special circumstances make it highly inequitable or oppressive to enforce the regulations." West Hartford v. Rechel , supra, at p. 121 (citations omitted). 2002"In municipal zoning cases, however, estoppel may be invoked 1) only with great caution, 2) only when the resulting violation has been unjustifiably induced by an agent having authority in such matters and 3) only when special circumstances make it highly inequitable or oppressive to enforce the regulations." West Hartford v. Rechel , 190 Conn. 114 , 121 (1983). | 1 | 12 |
Town of West Hartford v. Gelinasgreen2 sentences1993Dupuis v. Submarine Base Credit Union, Inc., [ 170 Conn. 344, 354 , 365 A.2d 1093 (1976)].” Zoning Commission v. Lescynski, 188 Conn. 724, 731-32 , 453 A.2d 1144 (1982); see also West Hartford v. Gelinas, 18 Conn. App. 688, 691 , 559 A.2d 1176 (1989). 1990The cases of West Hartford v. Rechel, supra, 121 and Zoning Commission v. Lescynski, 188 Conn. 724 , 732 , state that estoppel may be applied to municipal zoning cases "(1) only with great caution, (2) only when the resulting violation has been unjustifiably induced by an agent having authority in such matters and (3) only when special circumstances make it highly inequitable or oppressive to enforce the regulations." See also Dupuis v. Submarine Base Credit Union, Inc., supra, 354; West Hartford v. Gelinas, 18 Conn. App. 688 , 691 . | 1 | 2 |
Correa v. Wardgreen2 sentences2012See also Correa v. Ward, 91 Conn.App. 142, 147 , 881 A.2d 393 (2005) (construing analogous language in General Statutes §§ 47a-20 and 47a-20a of Landlord and Tenant Act). 2012See also Correa v. Ward, 91 Conn.App. 142, 147 , 881 A.2d 393 (2005) (construing analogous language in General Statutes §§ 47a-20 and 47a-20a of Landlord and Tenant Act). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Connecticut. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Zoning Commission v. Lescynski
green
2 sentences2003An exception is made where the party claiming estoppel would be subjected to a substantial loss if the municipality were permitted to negate the acts of its agents; however, the exception is to be applied "(1) only with great caution, (2) only when the resulting violation has been unjustifiably induced by an agent having authority in such matters, and (3) only when special circumstances make it highly inequitable or oppressive to enforce the regulations." Zoning Commission v. Lescynski, 188 Conn. 724 , 732 (1982). 2002An exception is made where the party claiming estoppel would be subjected to a substantial loss if the municipality were permitted to negate the acts of its agents; however, the exception is to be applied "(1) only with great caution, (2) only CT Page 16656 when the resulting violation has been unjustifiably induced by an agent having authority in such matters, and (3) only when special circumstances make it highly inequitable or oppressive to enforce the regulations." Zoning Commission v. Lescynski , 188 Conn. 724 , 732 (1982). | 13 | 1985–2003 |
Dornfried v. October Twenty-Four, Inc.
green
2 sentences1998"The courts have consistently held that the general rule applicable to the invocation of the doctrine of estoppel against municipal corporations should be limited and invoked (1) only with great caution, (2) only when the resulting violation has been unjustifiably induced by an agent having authority in such matters, and (3) only when special circumstances make it highly inequitable or oppressive to enforce the zoning or building regulations." (Emphasis in original.) Dupuis v. Submarine Base Credit Union, Inc. , 170 Conn. 344 , 354 , 365 A.2d 1093 (1976). "[E]stoppel always requires proof of t 1998"The courts have consistently held that the general rule applicable to the invocation of the doctrine of estoppel against municipal corporations should be limited and invoked (1) only with great caution, (2) only when the resulting violation has been unjustifiably induced by an agent having authority in such matters, and (3) only when special circumstances make it highly inequitable or oppressive to enforce the zoning or building regulations." (Emphasis in original.) Dupuis v. Submarine Base Credit Union, Inc. , 170 Conn. 344 , 354 , 365 A.2d 1093 (1976). "[E]stoppel always requires proof of t | 8 | 1995–2000 |
Bauer v. Waste Management of Connecticut, Inc.
green
2 sentences2003In municipal zoning cases, however, estoppel may be invoked (1) only with great caution, (2) only when the resulting violation has been unjustifiably induced by an agent having authority in such matters, and (3) only when special circumstances make it highly inequitable or oppressive to enforce the regulations.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Bauer v. Waste Management of Connecticut, Inc., 234 Conn. 221, 246-47 , 662 A.2d 1179 (1995). 2003In municipal zoning cases, however, estoppel may be invoked (1) only with great caution, (2) only when the resulting violation has been unjustifiably induced by an agent having authority in such matters, and (3) only when special circumstances make it highly inequitable or oppressive to enforce the regulations.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Bauer v. Waste Management of Connecticut, Inc., 234 Conn. 221, 246-47 , 662 A.2d 1179 (1995). | 4 | 1996–2003 |
State v. Nelson
green
2 sentences2009In State v. Nelson, 67 Conn. App. 168 , 786 A.2d 1171 (2001), a case sharing a similar factual predicate with the present appeal, we applied the substantial compliance test set forth in Ocasio , and the resulting analysis is instructive. 2009In State v. Nelson, 67 Conn. App. 168 , 786 A.2d 1171 (2001), a case sharing a similar factual predicate with the present appeal, we applied the substantial compliance test set forth in Ocasio , and the resulting analysis is instructive. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Dubno
green
1 sentence2007As noted, this exception applies where the party claiming estoppel would be subjected to substantial loss if the public agency were permitted to negate the acts of its agents.” (Citations omitted.) Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Dubno, 204 Conn. *727 137, 148, 527 A.2d 679 (1987); see also Dupuis v. Submarine Base Credit Union, Inc., 170 Conn. 344, 354 , 365 A.2d 1093 (1976) (application of equitable estoppel against government agency is “limited and invoked [1] only with great caution, [2] only when the resulting violation has been unjustifiably induced by an agent having authority in such matters, | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co. v. Walsh
green
2 sentences1994“Estoppel against municipalities is therefore limited and may be invoked against the enforcement of zoning regulations (1) only with great caution, (2) only when the resulting violation has been unjustifiably induced by an agent having authority in such matters, and (3) only when special circumstances make it highly inequitable or oppressive to enforce the regulations.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gelinas v. West Hartford, 225 Conn. 575, 590 , 626 A.2d 259 (1993); Zoning Commission v. Lescynski, supra, 731 . “[A]ny claim of estoppel is predicated on proof of two essential elements: the 1994“Estoppel against municipalities is therefore limited and may be invoked against the enforcement of zoning regulations (1) only with great caution, (2) only when the resulting violation has been unjustifiably induced by an agent having authority in such matters, and (3) only when special circumstances make it highly inequitable or oppressive to enforce the regulations.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gelinas v. West Hartford, 225 Conn. 575, 590 , 626 A.2d 259 (1993); Zoning Commission v. Lescynski, supra, 731 . “[A]ny claim of estoppel is predicated on proof of two essential elements: the | 1 | 1994–1994 |
O'Sullivan v. Bergenty
green
2 sentences1994“Estoppel against municipalities is therefore limited and may be invoked against the enforcement of zoning regulations (1) only with great caution, (2) only when the resulting violation has been unjustifiably induced by an agent having authority in such matters, and (3) only when special circumstances make it highly inequitable or oppressive to enforce the regulations.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gelinas v. West Hartford, 225 Conn. 575, 590 , 626 A.2d 259 (1993); Zoning Commission v. Lescynski, supra, 731 . “[A]ny claim of estoppel is predicated on proof of two essential elements: the 1994“Estoppel against municipalities is therefore limited and may be invoked against the enforcement of zoning regulations (1) only with great caution, (2) only when the resulting violation has been unjustifiably induced by an agent having authority in such matters, and (3) only when special circumstances make it highly inequitable or oppressive to enforce the regulations.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gelinas v. West Hartford, 225 Conn. 575, 590 , 626 A.2d 259 (1993); Zoning Commission v. Lescynski, supra, 731 . “[A]ny claim of estoppel is predicated on proof of two essential elements: the | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Bozzi v. Bozzi
green
1 sentence1992The former, that the party against whom estoppel is claimed, must do or say something calculated or intended to induce another party to believe that certain facts exist and to act on that belief; and the other party must change its position in reliance on those facts, thereby incurring some injury, Bozzi v. Bozzi, 177 Conn. 232 , 242 and the latter; that estoppel against a municipality "may be invoked" (1) only with great caution (2) only when the resulting violation has been unjustifiably induced by an agent having authority in such matters and (3) only when special circumstances make it high | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Tomlin v. Personnel Appeal Board
green
1 sentence1992The former, that the party against whom estoppel is claimed, must do or say something calculated or intended to induce another party to believe that certain facts exist and to act on that belief; and the other party must change its position in reliance on those facts, thereby incurring some injury, Bozzi v. Bozzi, 177 Conn. 232 , 242 and the latter; that estoppel against a municipality "may be invoked" (1) only with great caution (2) only when the resulting violation has been unjustifiably induced by an agent having authority in such matters and (3) only when special circumstances make it high | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.
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.