Wachsberger v. Beach

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “ ‘[ejstoppel is not available against a local government unit for the purpose of ratifying an administrative error,’ ” and such an administrative error does not confer rights contrary to the zoning laws
• estoppel may be available “where reasonable diligence by a good-faith inquirer would [not] have disclosed the true facts and the bureaucratic error”
• promissory estoppel not available against government entity where “reasonable diligence by good-faith inquirer” would have disclosed the true facts
• “[A] municipality . . . is not estopped from enforcing its zoning laws either by the issuance of a building permit or by laches . . . and the prior issue to petitioner of a building permit [does] not confer rights in contravention of the zoning laws.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).