RUSSELL

v.

TEXAS COMPANY ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (25 total)

• In re Combined Metals Reduction Co. v. Gemmill, 557 F.2d 179 (9th Cir. 1977)
  …ll not proceed to a formal judgment, but will dismiss the appeal.” Mills v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653, 16 S.Ct. 132, 133, 40 L.Ed. 293 (1895). Similarly, in Fink v. Continental Foundry & Machine Co., 240 F. 2d 369, 374 (7th Cir. 1957), cert. denied, 354 U.S. 938, 77 S.Ct. 1401, 1 L.Ed.2d 1538 (1957), the court of appeals stated the rule: “[I]f pending an appeal an event occurs which renders it impossible for the appellate court to grant any relief or renders a decision unnecessary the appeal will be dismis…
• Santiago v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 526 F.2d 488 (9th Cir. 1975)
  …estoppel is a rule of fairness by which courts protect the reliances and expectations of innocent persons from defeat by those who have induced those reliances and expectations. Russell v. Texas Co., 238 F. 2d 636, 640 (9th Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 354 U.S. 938, 77 S.Ct. 1400, 1 L.Ed.2d 1537 (1957). As a device of equity, it is applied so as to best safeguard the interests of both parties. Courts traditionally have been reluctant to apply equitable estoppel to the Government, however. They have assumed, mo…
• United States v. Ruby Co., 588 F.2d 697 (9th Cir. 1978)
  …1973). Estoppel, as all know, is an equitable doctrine, designed to protect the legitimate expectations of those who have relied to their detriment upon the conduct of another. Russel v. Texas Co., 238 F. 2d 636, 640 (9th Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 354 U.S. 938, 77 S.Ct. 1400, 1 L.Ed.2d 1537 (1957). Consequently, we should be reluctant to circumscribe the technical requirements for invoking it so narrowly and harshly as to eviscerate its beneficent protections and purposes. As my Brothers appropriately sa…