context: Although defendant argues that the decision to file a claim amounts to a misrepresentation of fact, the completion of that form at most represented plaintiffs assertion that he was legally entitled to workers' compensation benefits. That assertion was not one of fact; rather, it was a conclusion of law based on a factual context.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 314 Or 717, 717
citation_a.parenthetical: refusing to apply equitable estoppel when statements by county tax official were, at most, "a conclusion from facts or a conclusion of law"
citation_a.sentence: Coos County, 303 Or at 181; see also Welch, 314 Or at 717 (refusing to apply equitable estoppel when statements by county tax official were, at most, “a conclusion from facts or a conclusion of law”); Bennett, 192 Or at 541 (declining to apply estoppel when statements were “mere expressions of opinion”).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 333 Or 614, 619
citation_b.parenthetical: determination of claimant's status as "worker" is conclusion of law, not finding of fact
citation_b.sentence: Rubalcaba v. Nagaki Farms, Inc., 333 Or 614, 619, 43 P3d 1106 (2002) (determination of claimant’s status as “worker” is conclusion of law, not finding of fact). That type of representation may not serve as the basis for equitable estoppel.