Opinion ID: 2569468
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Unreasonable Delay and Quasi-Estoppel

Text: As the CFEC points out, none of the cases cited by Brandal supports the proposition that an administrative agency's decision can be overturned solely because the agency was slow in rendering its decision. Even if Brandal's assertion that a plaintiff can prevail on an unreasonable delay claim by show[ing] unreasonable delay and prejudice were accurate, he would be unable to make out a claim because he was not prejudiced by the delay. Had the CFEC adjudicated his case promptly, Brandal would not have received the windfall of being allowed to fish without being entitled to a permit.
Brandal's quasi-estoppel claim is also unpersuasive. Quasi-estoppel precludes a party from taking a position inconsistent with the one he [or she] has previously taken where circumstances render assertion of the second position unconscionable. [48] But the CFEC has not changed its position. As shown by the 1978 ruling, the 1982 recommended decision, and the 2004 final decision, the CFEC has consistently maintained that Brandal does not qualify for a permit. Brandal has no inconsistent earlier statement to rely on, and so he has not made out a quasi-estoppel claim.