_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1981017 ‎(171)‎

• Permit No: C1981017
• IBM Index Class Name: GENERAL DOCUMENTS
• Doc Name: Bid Documents ‎(IMP)‎ Court Appeals
• Permit Index Doc Type: General Correspondence
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTORY NOTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . S
A. The granting of summary judgment here was
inappropriate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
B. The trial courts application of equitable estop-
pel to the State was not proper. . . . . . . . . . 12
1 . The necessary elements of estoppel of a
representation after full knowledge of the
facts which was reasonably relied upon by the
defendants to their detriment were not
established in this case. . . . . . . . . . . 15
C. Application of doctrine undermines important
governmental policy and legislative intent. . . . . 22
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
i