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 1864–1970 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 |
|---|---|---|
Arp v. Blakegreen2 sentences1960Such a license can only be based on the theory of equitable estoppel and- in the connection in which it is here used, it could only be estoppel in pais. “. . . the doctrine of estoppel in pais must be applied strictly and should not be enforced unless substantiated in every particular.” (Bear Creek Co. v. James, 115 Cal.App.2d 725, 732 [5] [ 252 P.2d 723 ].) “ ‘In general, four things are essential to the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel: first, the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts; second, he must intend that his conduct shall be acted upon, or must so act t 1960Such a license can only be based on the theory of equitable estoppel and- in the connection in which it is here used, it could only be estoppel in pais. “. . . the doctrine of estoppel in pais must be applied strictly and should not be enforced unless substantiated in every particular.” (Bear Creek Co. v. James, 115 Cal.App.2d 725, 732 [5] [ 252 P.2d 723 ].) “ ‘In general, four things are essential to the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel: first, the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts; second, he must intend that his conduct shall be acted upon, or must so act t | 1 | 1 |
People v. Ocean Shore Railroad, Inc.green2 sentences1960A few of these cases are Biddle Boggs v. Merced Mining Co., 14 Cal. 279, 293 ; Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 266 [ 4 P. 919 , 10 P. 674 ]; Verdugo Canon Water Co. v. Verdugo, 152 Cal. 655, 683-684 [ 93 P. 1021 ]; City of San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water *331 Co., 209 Cal. 105, 149 [ 287 P. 475 ] ; Lusitanian-American Development Co. v. Seaboard etc. Corp., 1 Cal.2d 121, 128 [5] [ 34 P.2d 139 ]; People v. Ocean Shore Railroad, 32 Cal.2d 406, 421 [19] [ 196 P.2d 570 , 6 A.L.R.2d 1179 ], Chief among the principles necessary to sustain the person claiming estoppel is damage to that person through being m 1960A few of these cases are Biddle Boggs v. Merced Mining Co., 14 Cal. 279, 293 ; Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 266 [ 4 P. 919 , 10 P. 674 ]; Verdugo Canon Water Co. v. Verdugo, 152 Cal. 655, 683-684 [ 93 P. 1021 ]; City of San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water *331 Co., 209 Cal. 105, 149 [ 287 P. 475 ] ; Lusitanian-American Development Co. v. Seaboard etc. Corp., 1 Cal.2d 121, 128 [5] [ 34 P.2d 139 ]; People v. Ocean Shore Railroad, 32 Cal.2d 406, 421 [19] [ 196 P.2d 570 , 6 A.L.R.2d 1179 ], Chief among the principles necessary to sustain the person claiming estoppel is damage to that person through being m | 1 | 1 |
City of San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water Co.green2 sentences1960A few of these cases are Biddle Boggs v. Merced Mining Co., 14 Cal. 279, 293 ; Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 266 [ 4 P. 919 , 10 P. 674 ]; Verdugo Canon Water Co. v. Verdugo, 152 Cal. 655, 683-684 [ 93 P. 1021 ]; City of San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water *331 Co., 209 Cal. 105, 149 [ 287 P. 475 ] ; Lusitanian-American Development Co. v. Seaboard etc. Corp., 1 Cal.2d 121, 128 [5] [ 34 P.2d 139 ]; People v. Ocean Shore Railroad, 32 Cal.2d 406, 421 [19] [ 196 P.2d 570 , 6 A.L.R.2d 1179 ], Chief among the principles necessary to sustain the person claiming estoppel is damage to that person through being m 1960A few of these cases are Biddle Boggs v. Merced Mining Co., 14 Cal. 279, 293 ; Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 266 [ 4 P. 919 , 10 P. 674 ]; Verdugo Canon Water Co. v. Verdugo, 152 Cal. 655, 683-684 [ 93 P. 1021 ]; City of San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water *331 Co., 209 Cal. 105, 149 [ 287 P. 475 ] ; Lusitanian-American Development Co. v. Seaboard etc. Corp., 1 Cal.2d 121, 128 [5] [ 34 P.2d 139 ]; People v. Ocean Shore Railroad, 32 Cal.2d 406, 421 [19] [ 196 P.2d 570 , 6 A.L.R.2d 1179 ], Chief among the principles necessary to sustain the person claiming estoppel is damage to that person through being m | 1 | 1 |
Verdugo Ca&209on Water Co. v. Verdugogreen2 sentences1960A few of these cases are Biddle Boggs v. Merced Mining Co., 14 Cal. 279, 293 ; Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 266 [ 4 P. 919 , 10 P. 674 ]; Verdugo Canon Water Co. v. Verdugo, 152 Cal. 655, 683-684 [ 93 P. 1021 ]; City of San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water *331 Co., 209 Cal. 105, 149 [ 287 P. 475 ] ; Lusitanian-American Development Co. v. Seaboard etc. Corp., 1 Cal.2d 121, 128 [5] [ 34 P.2d 139 ]; People v. Ocean Shore Railroad, 32 Cal.2d 406, 421 [19] [ 196 P.2d 570 , 6 A.L.R.2d 1179 ], Chief among the principles necessary to sustain the person claiming estoppel is damage to that person through being m 1960A few of these cases are Biddle Boggs v. Merced Mining Co., 14 Cal. 279, 293 ; Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 266 [ 4 P. 919 , 10 P. 674 ]; Verdugo Canon Water Co. v. Verdugo, 152 Cal. 655, 683-684 [ 93 P. 1021 ]; City of San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water *331 Co., 209 Cal. 105, 149 [ 287 P. 475 ] ; Lusitanian-American Development Co. v. Seaboard etc. Corp., 1 Cal.2d 121, 128 [5] [ 34 P.2d 139 ]; People v. Ocean Shore Railroad, 32 Cal.2d 406, 421 [19] [ 196 P.2d 570 , 6 A.L.R.2d 1179 ], Chief among the principles necessary to sustain the person claiming estoppel is damage to that person through being m | 1 | 1 |
Bear Creek Co. v. Jamesgreen2 sentences1960Such a license can only be based on the theory of equitable estoppel and- in the connection in which it is here used, it could only be estoppel in pais. “. . . the doctrine of estoppel in pais must be applied strictly and should not be enforced unless substantiated in every particular.” (Bear Creek Co. v. James, 115 Cal.App.2d 725, 732 [5] [ 252 P.2d 723 ].) “ ‘In general, four things are essential to the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel: first, the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts; second, he must intend that his conduct shall be acted upon, or must so act t 1960Such a license can only be based on the theory of equitable estoppel and- in the connection in which it is here used, it could only be estoppel in pais. “. . . the doctrine of estoppel in pais must be applied strictly and should not be enforced unless substantiated in every particular.” (Bear Creek Co. v. James, 115 Cal.App.2d 725, 732 [5] [ 252 P.2d 723 ].) “ ‘In general, four things are essential to the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel: first, the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts; second, he must intend that his conduct shall be acted upon, or must so act t | 1 | 1 |
Safway Steel Products, Inc. v. Lefevergreen2 sentences1960Such a license can only be based on the theory of equitable estoppel and- in the connection in which it is here used, it could only be estoppel in pais. “. . . the doctrine of estoppel in pais must be applied strictly and should not be enforced unless substantiated in every particular.” (Bear Creek Co. v. James, 115 Cal.App.2d 725, 732 [5] [ 252 P.2d 723 ].) “ ‘In general, four things are essential to the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel: first, the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts; second, he must intend that his conduct shall be acted upon, or must so act t 1960Such a license can only be based on the theory of equitable estoppel and- in the connection in which it is here used, it could only be estoppel in pais. “. . . the doctrine of estoppel in pais must be applied strictly and should not be enforced unless substantiated in every particular.” (Bear Creek Co. v. James, 115 Cal.App.2d 725, 732 [5] [ 252 P.2d 723 ].) “ ‘In general, four things are essential to the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel: first, the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts; second, he must intend that his conduct shall be acted upon, or must so act t | 1 | 1 |
Lusitanian-American Development Co. v. Seaboard Dairy Credit Corp.green2 sentences1960A few of these cases are Biddle Boggs v. Merced Mining Co., 14 Cal. 279, 293 ; Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 266 [ 4 P. 919 , 10 P. 674 ]; Verdugo Canon Water Co. v. Verdugo, 152 Cal. 655, 683-684 [ 93 P. 1021 ]; City of San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water *331 Co., 209 Cal. 105, 149 [ 287 P. 475 ] ; Lusitanian-American Development Co. v. Seaboard etc. Corp., 1 Cal.2d 121, 128 [5] [ 34 P.2d 139 ]; People v. Ocean Shore Railroad, 32 Cal.2d 406, 421 [19] [ 196 P.2d 570 , 6 A.L.R.2d 1179 ], Chief among the principles necessary to sustain the person claiming estoppel is damage to that person through being m 1960A few of these cases are Biddle Boggs v. Merced Mining Co., 14 Cal. 279, 293 ; Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 266 [ 4 P. 919 , 10 P. 674 ]; Verdugo Canon Water Co. v. Verdugo, 152 Cal. 655, 683-684 [ 93 P. 1021 ]; City of San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water *331 Co., 209 Cal. 105, 149 [ 287 P. 475 ] ; Lusitanian-American Development Co. v. Seaboard etc. Corp., 1 Cal.2d 121, 128 [5] [ 34 P.2d 139 ]; People v. Ocean Shore Railroad, 32 Cal.2d 406, 421 [19] [ 196 P.2d 570 , 6 A.L.R.2d 1179 ], Chief among the principles necessary to sustain the person claiming estoppel is damage to that person through being m | 1 | 1 |
Marks v. Bunkergreen2 sentences1960Such a license can only be based on the theory of equitable estoppel and- in the connection in which it is here used, it could only be estoppel in pais. “. . . the doctrine of estoppel in pais must be applied strictly and should not be enforced unless substantiated in every particular.” (Bear Creek Co. v. James, 115 Cal.App.2d 725, 732 [5] [ 252 P.2d 723 ].) “ ‘In general, four things are essential to the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel: first, the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts; second, he must intend that his conduct shall be acted upon, or must so act t 1960Such a license can only be based on the theory of equitable estoppel and- in the connection in which it is here used, it could only be estoppel in pais. “. . . the doctrine of estoppel in pais must be applied strictly and should not be enforced unless substantiated in every particular.” (Bear Creek Co. v. James, 115 Cal.App.2d 725, 732 [5] [ 252 P.2d 723 ].) “ ‘In general, four things are essential to the application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel: first, the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts; second, he must intend that his conduct shall be acted upon, or must so act t | 1 | 1 |
Lux v. Haggingreen2 sentences1960A few of these cases are Biddle Boggs v. Merced Mining Co., 14 Cal. 279, 293 ; Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 266 [ 4 P. 919 , 10 P. 674 ]; Verdugo Canon Water Co. v. Verdugo, 152 Cal. 655, 683-684 [ 93 P. 1021 ]; City of San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water *331 Co., 209 Cal. 105, 149 [ 287 P. 475 ] ; Lusitanian-American Development Co. v. Seaboard etc. Corp., 1 Cal.2d 121, 128 [5] [ 34 P.2d 139 ]; People v. Ocean Shore Railroad, 32 Cal.2d 406, 421 [19] [ 196 P.2d 570 , 6 A.L.R.2d 1179 ], Chief among the principles necessary to sustain the person claiming estoppel is damage to that person through being m 1960A few of these cases are Biddle Boggs v. Merced Mining Co., 14 Cal. 279, 293 ; Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 266 [ 4 P. 919 , 10 P. 674 ]; Verdugo Canon Water Co. v. Verdugo, 152 Cal. 655, 683-684 [ 93 P. 1021 ]; City of San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water *331 Co., 209 Cal. 105, 149 [ 287 P. 475 ] ; Lusitanian-American Development Co. v. Seaboard etc. Corp., 1 Cal.2d 121, 128 [5] [ 34 P.2d 139 ]; People v. Ocean Shore Railroad, 32 Cal.2d 406, 421 [19] [ 196 P.2d 570 , 6 A.L.R.2d 1179 ], Chief among the principles necessary to sustain the person claiming estoppel is damage to that person through being m | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Anglo-California Trust Co.red2 sentences1950(Smith v. Anglo-California Trust Co., 205 Cal. 496, 504 [ 271 P. 898 ] ; American National Bank v. A. G. 1950(Smith v. Anglo-California Trust Co., 205 Cal. 496, 504 [ 271 P. 898 ] ; American National Bank v. A. G. | 1 | 1 |
Kindig v. Palos Verdes Homes Assn.green2 sentences1950As was said in Kindig v. Palos Verdes Homes Assn., 33 Cal.App. 2d 349, 354 [ 91 P.2d 645 ]: “One of the essential elements of estoppel, that the party relying thereon has been prejudiced as a result of another *921 party’s acts, is not present in this ease, and, therefore this doctrine has no application.” The doctrine of estoppel in pais, upon which defendants rely, is an equitable one. 1950As was said in Kindig v. Palos Verdes Homes Assn., 33 Cal.App. 2d 349, 354 [ 91 P.2d 645 ]: “One of the essential elements of estoppel, that the party relying thereon has been prejudiced as a result of another *921 party’s acts, is not present in this ease, and, therefore this doctrine has no application.” The doctrine of estoppel in pais, upon which defendants rely, is an equitable one. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Dickerson v. Colgrove
green
2 sentences1970(Mass.) 110; Osborne v. Butcher, 26 N.J.L. 308 ; . . .” 2 That this view is not of recent origin is evident from the following statement in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (Rawle’s Revision 1914) at page 1082: “The doctrine of estoppel in pais is applied at law as well as in equity; Dickerson v. Colgrove, 100 U.S. 578 , 25 L.Ed. 618 (where the early cases are cited); [additional citations]; and therefore it is neither necessary nor permissible. to resort to equity to obtain the benefit of it; [citations]....” 1970(Mass.) 110; Osborne v. Butcher, 26 N.J.L. 308 ; . . .” 2 That this view is not of recent origin is evident from the following statement in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (Rawle’s Revision 1914) at page 1082: “The doctrine of estoppel in pais is applied at law as well as in equity; Dickerson v. Colgrove, 100 U.S. 578 , 25 L.Ed. 618 (where the early cases are cited); [additional citations]; and therefore it is neither necessary nor permissible. to resort to equity to obtain the benefit of it; [citations]....” | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Osborne v. Butcher
neutral
1 sentence1970(Mass.) 110; Osborne v. Butcher, 26 N.J.L. 308 ; . . .” 2 That this view is not of recent origin is evident from the following statement in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (Rawle’s Revision 1914) at page 1082: “The doctrine of estoppel in pais is applied at law as well as in equity; Dickerson v. Colgrove, 100 U.S. 578 , 25 L.Ed. 618 (where the early cases are cited); [additional citations]; and therefore it is neither necessary nor permissible. to resort to equity to obtain the benefit of it; [citations]....” | 1 | 1970–1970 |
Travelers Insurance Co. v. Eviston
green
2 sentences1963Co. v. Eviston, 110 Ind. App. 143 [ 37 N.E.2d 310 ].) Furthermore, the doctrine of estoppel in pais would apply: “The doctrine of estoppel in pais proceeds upon the theory that the party has, by his declarations or conduct, misled another to his prejudice, so that it would be a fraud upon the latter to allow the true state of facts to be proved. 1963Co. v. Eviston, 110 Ind. App. 143 [ 37 N.E.2d 310 ].) Furthermore, the doctrine of estoppel in pais would apply: “The doctrine of estoppel in pais proceeds upon the theory that the party has, by his declarations or conduct, misled another to his prejudice, so that it would be a fraud upon the latter to allow the true state of facts to be proved. | 1 | 1963–1963 |
Boggs v. Merced Mining Co.
green
1 sentence1960A few of these cases are Biddle Boggs v. Merced Mining Co., 14 Cal. 279, 293 ; Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 266 [ 4 P. 919 , 10 P. 674 ]; Verdugo Canon Water Co. v. Verdugo, 152 Cal. 655, 683-684 [ 93 P. 1021 ]; City of San Diego v. Cuyamaca Water *331 Co., 209 Cal. 105, 149 [ 287 P. 475 ] ; Lusitanian-American Development Co. v. Seaboard etc. Corp., 1 Cal.2d 121, 128 [5] [ 34 P.2d 139 ]; People v. Ocean Shore Railroad, 32 Cal.2d 406, 421 [19] [ 196 P.2d 570 , 6 A.L.R.2d 1179 ], Chief among the principles necessary to sustain the person claiming estoppel is damage to that person through being m | 1 | 1960–1960 |
Prescott v. Edwards
green
1 sentence1907The matter has been discussed many times by this court, but it is unnecessary to do more here than to cite the case of Prescott v. Edwards, 117 Cal. 298 , [ 59 Am. | 1 | 1907–1907 |
Carpentier v. Thirston
neutral
1 sentence1864(Whitaker v. Williams, 20 Conn. 104; 1 Story’s Eq., Sec. 391; Carpentier v. Thirston, 24 Cal. 268 .) The doctrine of estoppel in pais should not be too readily extended when the effect of it is to divest men of their estates in lands. | 1 | 1864–1864 |
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.