Legal Opinion
Monadnock Regional School District v. Fitzwilliam
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
Decided August 7, 1964No. 5261PublishedCited by 24 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLampron, J.
Because of their interrelation we will consider together the first two transferred questions which read as follows:
“1. Is the doctrine of estoppel available in this action to Fitzwilliam, Troy, Richmond and Roxbury?
“2. If the answer to question 1 is ‘yes,’ may the Court find estoppel if it finds the facts in accordance with the requests for findings of fact?”
Estoppel, whether called equitable estoppel or estoppel in pais, has been said to arise when “a party who knows or should know the truth is absolutely precluded, both at law and in equity, from denying, or asserting the contrary of, any…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- John Hampton and Dorothy Hampton v. Paramount Pictures Corporation, and Eastman Kodak CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1960
- Jennings v. Bituminous Casualty Corp.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1964
- Mayor of Baltimore v. Chesapeake Marine Railway Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1964
3Cited by24 opinions
- Great Lakes Aircraft Co. v. City of ClaremontSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1992
- United States v. Ottati & Goss, Inc.District Court, D. New Hampshire · 1985
- Olszak v. Peerless InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1979
- City of Concord v. TompkinsSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1984
- Town of Nottingham v. Lee Homes, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1978
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.