Office of Personnel Management v. Richmond
United States Supreme Court
496 U.S. 414 (1990)
Charles Richmond (plaintiff) sought advice from a federal employee of the Navy regarding the statutory limit on earnings that would disqualify him from a disability annuity. As a result of erroneous information that this employee provided, Richmond earned more than permitted by statutory eligibility requirements and the Office of Personnel Management (defendant) denied him six months of benefits. Arguing that the employee’s erroneous and unauthorized advice should give rise to equitable estoppel against the United States Government, Richmond sought payment of benefits contrary to the statutory terms. The court of appeals agreed with Richmond, holding that he was entitled to the payment of the disability benefits. The case was brought before the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Kennedy, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 148,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,300 briefs, keyed to 182 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.