Rainaldi v. Public Employees Retirement Board

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “estoppel cannot lie against the 6 state when the act sought to be carried out through the use of estoppel is contrary to 7 law”
• stating that employees of retirement board that was charged with administering Public Employees Retirement Act “had special knowledge regarding its application”
• stating that estoppel cannot lie against the state when the act sought would be contrary to the requirements expressed by statute
• noting that courts have refused to allow estoppel against the state when the use of estoppel is based on the advice of a government official that contradicts a statute or would permit an act that is contrary to law
• “It is true ... that we have held that certiorari may be the only method available for reviewing the actions of a state board where no statutory review is provided.”
• estoppel against the government is applied sparingly, only in exceptional cases in which there is a shocking degree of aggravated conduct, and only where right and justice demand it

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).