Estoppel

Back to Topic Index

Civil Service Charges
The doctrine of collateral estoppel bars the assertion of any defense to Civil Service charges where the individual has been convicted of a disorderly persons offense arising out of the same set of facts. Decision: 2 N.J.A.R. 009
Federal Complaint
An administrative action is not barred by a dismissal of a more broadly based federal complaint when neither the doctrine of collateral estoppel or res judicata apply. Decision: 4 N.J.A.R. 105
Medicaid
Recovery of Medicaid overpayments with interests will not be barred by equitable estoppel where no showing was made that an officer of the State, conscious of the State's true interest and aware of petitioner's misapprehension stood by while the other party acted in detrimental reliance. Decision: 8 N.J.A.R. 217
Equitable estoppel may only be applied against the State to prevent a manifest wrong or injustice. Decision: 8 N.J.A.R. 217
Motor Vehicles
Prior conviction of an offense in municipal court collaterally estops the relitigation of issues in an administrative proceeding. Decision: 4 N.J.A.R. 038
Pension--Death Benefits
Equitable estoppel will not be applied to permit payment of pension death benefits to a public employee on leave of absence at time of death since there was no evidence that the employee relied on the issuance of insurance and since payroll deduction certificates indicating insurance coverage would begin on the effective date of her leave of absence. Decision: 2 N.J.A.R. 427
Pinelands
Failure to establish that any action of the State led a developer to act in reasonable reliance to its detriment precludes invoking the doctrine of estoppel. Decision: 3 N.J.A.R. 009
Comments by a Pinelands Commission staff member which are preliminary in nature and which clearly alert that his application is still pending are insufficient to establish detrimental reliance. Decision: 9 N.J.A.R. 202
Prior Conviction
Prior conviction of an offense in municipal court collaterally estops the relitigation of issues in an administrative proceeding. Decision: 4 N.J.A.R. 038