• Login
    View Item 
    •   CDR Home
    • School of Law
    • Creighton Law Review
    • View Item
    •   CDR Home
    • School of Law
    • Creighton Law Review
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Estoppel and the Affirmative Misconduct Requirement - Chien-Shih Wang v. Attorney General

    View/Open
    51_21CreightonLRev1149(1987-1988).pdf (1.968Mb)
    Citation Information

    Title
    Estoppel and the Affirmative Misconduct Requirement - Chien-Shih Wang v. Attorney General

    Authors
    Hershiser, Julia A.

    Journal
    Creighton Law Review

    Volume
    21

    Pages
    1149

    Date
    1988
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    INTRODUCTION

    Traditionally, the United States government has been immune from the doctrine of equitable estoppel. However, in recent years this view has given way to the sounder view that estoppel may lie against the government in the proper case. Determining the proper case, however, has not been an easy task. As a general rule, the doctrine of equitable estoppel precludes a party from maintaining a defense or a right that may have otherwise been available against one who reasonably relied to his detriment on the former's actions or misinformation. In order to invoke the defense of estoppel, four elements must be established: (1) The party to be estopped must know the facts; (2) he must intend that his conduct shall be acted on or must so act that the party asserting the estoppel has a right to believe it is so intended; (3) the latter must be ignorant of the true facts; and (4) he must rely on the former's conduct to his injury. In the United States, the traditional rule has been that estoppel cannot lie against the United States government. The underlying reason for the rule appears to stem from the early notion that "the King can do no wrong," which led to the doctrine of sovereign immunity in the United States. The principle seemed so firmly embedded that courts would apply it rather mechanically, without discerning any need for explanation or justification of its rationale. Early on, the Supreme Court has discarded the estoppel argument by simply...
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10504/39742
    Collections
    • Creighton Law Review

    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
    Theme by 
    @mire NV
     

     

    Browse

    All of the CDRCommunities & CollectionsBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionBy Issue DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    DSpace software copyright © 2002-2015  DuraSpace
    Contact Us | Send Feedback
    Theme by 
    @mire NV