John's Heating Service v. Lamb

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that quasi-estoppel did not apply because party asserting inconsistent position gained no advantage, other party did not rely on assertion, and first assertion was made without full knowledge of facts
• noting that the judge acts as factfinder in determining the applicability of statute of limitations
• determining that the trial court erroneously excluded expert witness testimony regarding the \appropriate standard of care for a heating service professional\
• holding quasi-estoppel not applicable when party taking inconsistent position did not gain anything from original position, third party did not sufficiently rely on either position, and first position was not based on full knowledge of facts
• noting \temporal relationship between the symptoms\ and alleged source of injury bolsters credibility of expert's causation testimony
• remanding a statute of limitations issue \to the superior court for determination as a preliminary question of fact\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).