Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comAuthor: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC|April 21, 2014
April 21, 2014 – Ocean Township, Monmouth County, New Jersey – Joel N. Kreizman, Partner and Co-Chair of the Litigation Group at Scarinci Hollenbeck recently published “The Applicability of Equitable Estoppel” in New Jersey Lawyer Magazine.
New Jersey Lawyer Magazine is an award-winning, bimonthly publication created by the New Jersey Bar Association. Each issue focuses on a certain area of substantive law and features articles written by experienced professionals.
In the April 2014 issue, Kreizman’s “The Applicability of Equitable Estoppel” discusses how Equitable Estoppel, a court created doctrine that prevents a party from “asserting rights which might perhaps have otherwise existed…as against another person who in good faith relied upon such conduct and thereby has been led to change his position for the worse,” is often used as a defense in court and rarely used for affirmative purposes.
When an effort was made to use equitable estoppel affirmatively to compel an arbitration where no agreement to arbitrate existed, the Supreme Court in Hirsch v. Amper Financial rejected that effort. Justice Jaynee LaVecchia, author of the opinion, wrote: “Equitable estoppel is more properly viewed as a shield to prevent injustice rather than a sword to compel arbitration.”
You can find Mr. Kreizman’s full article here at The Applicability of Equitable Estoppel.
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comApril 21, 2014 – Ocean Township, Monmouth County, New Jersey – Joel N. Kreizman, Partner and Co-Chair of the Litigation Group at Scarinci Hollenbeck recently published “The Applicability of Equitable Estoppel” in New Jersey Lawyer Magazine.
New Jersey Lawyer Magazine is an award-winning, bimonthly publication created by the New Jersey Bar Association. Each issue focuses on a certain area of substantive law and features articles written by experienced professionals.
In the April 2014 issue, Kreizman’s “The Applicability of Equitable Estoppel” discusses how Equitable Estoppel, a court created doctrine that prevents a party from “asserting rights which might perhaps have otherwise existed…as against another person who in good faith relied upon such conduct and thereby has been led to change his position for the worse,” is often used as a defense in court and rarely used for affirmative purposes.
When an effort was made to use equitable estoppel affirmatively to compel an arbitration where no agreement to arbitrate existed, the Supreme Court in Hirsch v. Amper Financial rejected that effort. Justice Jaynee LaVecchia, author of the opinion, wrote: “Equitable estoppel is more properly viewed as a shield to prevent injustice rather than a sword to compel arbitration.”
You can find Mr. Kreizman’s full article here at The Applicability of Equitable Estoppel.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.