Legal Opinion

Santich v. VCG Holding Corp.

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided June 24, 2019No. 18SA212, SantichPublishedCited by 20 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

JUSTICE HART delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶1 Under Colorado law, equitable estoppel requires proof of four elements. One of those elements has long been detrimental reliance on the words or actions of the party against *64 whom estoppel is sought. In this case, we accepted jurisdiction over a certified question of law from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado that requires us to determine whether there should be an exception to that requirement in the context of arbitration agreements. We hold that Colorado's law of equitable estoppel applies in the same manner…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Arthur Andersen LLP v. CarlisleSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
  2. Department of Health v. DonahueSupreme Court of Colorado · 1984
  3. Goldman v. KPMG, LLPCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2009
  4. Michael E. Hirsch v. Amper Financial Services, LLC (070751)Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2013
  5. City of Thornton v. Bijou Irrigation Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1996

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by20 opinions

  1. AtriCure, Inc. v. Jian MengCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2021
  2. Andreoli v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLCDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2020
  3. Davis v. Nissan North America, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 2024
  4. Estate of William Alvin Moncrief, Jr. v. the State of Texas, Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)2024
  5. Estate of William Alvin Moncrief, Jr. v. the State of Texas, Texas Court of Appeals, 2nd District (Fort Worth)2024

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API