Also known as: estop · estops · estopped · estopping · estoppage · estoppels
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A doctrine that prevents a party from asserting a claim or position inconsistent with a prior representation, conduct, or judicial determination when another party has reasonably relied on it to its detriment. The doctrine operates to avoid injustice by holding the party to the consequences of its earlier actions or statements.
Edward Everett permits his neighbor Elliot Edmonds to build and use a driveway across Everett's vacant lot to reach the public road. Edmonds invests heavily in paving and landscaping the driveway in reliance on the permission. When Everett later attempts to revoke access and deny any servitude, a court estops him from denying the servitude because injustice can be avoided only by recognizing the burden on the land.
Enzo Eastwood is acquitted of robbing one victim when identity is the sole contested issue at trial. Prosecutors later charge him with robbing a second victim during the same incident using identical evidence of identity. The court dismisses the second prosecution because the prior acquittal necessarily resolved the ultimate fact of identity against the state.
Evelyn Ellison, acting as an agent for Equinox Energy, exceeds her actual and apparent authority when negotiating a supply contract. A third party harmed by the transaction seeks to hold the principal liable. The court finds liability arises solely from the agency relation under inherent agency power rather than from any estoppel created by the principal's manifestations.
Eduardo Enriquez conveys a parcel by warranty deed to Eclipse Manufacturing even though he does not yet own the parcel. After Enriquez later acquires full title, Eclipse claims ownership. The after-acquired title passes to Eclipse by estoppel, preventing Enriquez from denying he had title at the time of the original conveyance.
Edgewater Capital develops a subdivision and orally assures buyers that all lots are subject to a recorded declaration of use restrictions. Buyers purchase and improve lots in reliance on the representation. When the developer later denies the servitude's existence, a court recognizes creation of the servitude by estoppel because the buyers substantially changed position.
Eileen Epstein, though not a named party, directs and funds the defense of a prior lawsuit in which she holds a direct financial interest. After an issue is actually and necessarily decided against her position in that action, she attempts to relitigate the same issue in a new suit. The court applies collateral estoppel because her control over the prior litigation binds her to the earlier determination.
The owner must have permitted use or made a representation under circumstances making substantial change in position reasonably foreseeable, the user must have substantially changed position in reasonable reliance, and injustice must be avoidable only by recognizing the servitude.
When an acquittal necessarily resolves an ultimate fact such as identity in the defendant's favor, the state may not relitigate that fact in a later prosecution arising from the same episode even if a different victim or charge is involved.
A grantor who conveys an interest by warranty deed that the grantor does not then own is estopped from denying title when the grantor later acquires the interest. The after-acquired title passes to the grantee.
Inherent agency power arises solely from the agency relation itself to protect third parties harmed by or dealing with the agent, independent of any manifestations that would create apparent authority or estoppel.
…rights to a federal forum "because state administrative agency determinations do not create res judicata or collateral estoppel effects. The exhaustion of state administrative remedies postpones rather than precludes the assertion of federal jurisdiction." Comment, Exhaustion of State Administrative Remedies in…