The U.S. Supreme Court case Office of Personnel Management v. Charles Richmond (1989) dealt with the issue of whether erroneous advice given by a government official could bind the government to provide benefits not otherwise allowed by law. Charles Richmond, a retired Navy engineer, had received incorrect information from an employee relations specialist about his eligibility for dual compensation if he returned to work after retirement. Based on this advice, Richmond accepted employment and later discovered that he was ineligible for full dual compensation due to statutory restrictions. Richmond appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board and then federal court arguing that principles of equity should allow him to receive full benefits because he relied on erroneous advice from a government official in good faith. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him stating that estoppel cannot be used against the Government in such cases as it would undermine statutes enacted by Congress controlling public funds disbursement. In essence, this ruling established that even when individuals act based on inaccurate information provided by governmental officials or agencies they are still bound by existing laws and regulations.

In the dissenting opinion for Office of Personnel Management v. Charles Richmond, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision was too harsh and did not take into account the unique circumstances of Mr. Richmond's case. He believed that while it is important to prevent fraud in government programs, this should not come at the expense of innocent individuals who have been misled by erroneous advice from government officials. In his view, estoppel should be applied against the government when its wrongful conduct threatens to injure a private party’s interests and there are no competing public interests at stake or if such interests are outweighed by injustice done to an individual. The justice felt that Mr.Richmond had relied on incorrect information provided by a federal employee in good faith and thus he shouldn't be penalized for this mistake made by a representative of a governmental agency.