LYNG, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, ET AL.

v.

PAYNE ET AL.; REED V. CAMPBELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF RICKER; MCCALLUM V. UNITED STATES; POWELL V. POWELL; MULLIGAN V. HAZARD ET AL.; CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL ASSN. ET AL. V. HENNING, LABOR COMMISSIONER, DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS ENFORCEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS OF CALIFORNIA; GRIMES V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO.

Citator

Cited By

• Weisfeld v. Peterseil Sch. Corp., 623 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
  …, the School’s conduct is ambiguous. Thus, estoppel is inappropriate. Furthermore, critical to estoppel is detrimental reliance on the adverse party’s misrepresentation. Lyng v. Payne, 476 U.S. 926, 106 S.Ct. 2333, 90 L.Ed.2d 921, rehearing denied, 478 U.S. 1031, 107 S.Ct. 11, 92 L.Ed.2d 766 (1986). There is neither a showing of Weisfeld’s being misled nor of detrimental reliance on her part. She thought she would be fired but she never changed her position. I concur with the majority’s affirmation of the…
• United States v. Park B. Banks, 115 F.3d 916 (11th Cir. 1997)
  …758 F. 2d 508, 514 (10th Cir.1985). The Corp’s interpretation of its own regulations, not Banks’ interpretation, is entitled to substantial deference. Lyng v. Payne, 476 U.S. 926, 939, 106 S.Ct. 2333, 2341-42, 90 L.Ed.2d 921 (1986), reh’g denied, 478 U.S. 1031, 107 S.Ct. 11, 92 L.Ed.2d 766 (1986). In Banks’ particular case, the Corps consistently construed his acts to be outside the scope of NWP 26; as early as 1983, Banks was specifically told by the Corps that his activities required a permit. In 1984…