Search

Res judicata plays an important role in the management of complex cross-border commercial disputes. Courts and tribunals are increasingly required to grapple with the application of res judicata on the basis of a prior determination from a different, and potentially unfamiliar, legal system. These considerations come even more alive in the context of the ambitious transnational project of the Belt & Road Initiative. This paper critically examines the Singapore Court of Appeal's decision in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v Merck KgGA, which offers a cooperative vision of transnational res judicata that strikes a balance between comity and mutual trust between national legal systems, and each system's own sovereign and constitutional responsibilities and interests. The paper also considers the potential influences of Merck's unique transnational vision for the BRI dispute resolution ecosystem. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Disputes over frozen embryos represent a particularly problematic case, legally and ethically, due to the ambiguity of their moral and legal status and the potential rights-claims which can be made with regard to them. Recent work has contextualised frozen embryos as liminal and suggested a contextual approach to their legal classification. By appeal to personal property law, with a lens provided by Roman law doctrines, and reproductive bioethics, we argue that frozen embryos may be subjects of property rights, providing a more stable framework for dispute resolution. To illustrate how a property approach would work, we reconsider the facts of the influential Evans case and argue that if a proprietary rather than promissory estoppel claim had been pursued, the reverse outcome may have been reached, to the benefit of women who are disproportionately harmed in these scenarios. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Comment seeks to resolve a dispute among district courts on how to interpret the term "ground" in 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), the America Invents Act's (AIA) estoppel provision. The question of whether a party that asserts a printed publication or patent in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding is estopped from asserting realworld prior art, such as a device, in a later civil action under § 315(e)(2) has resulted in a district court split. Some courts have construed the estoppel provision narrowly, reasoning that because a physical object like a device is not something that could have been raised during IPR, estoppel cannot apply. Under this interpretation, "ground" is interpreted to mean a piece of evidence. Because physical products are not the same type of evidence offered during IPR, litigants are not estopped from using them in later civil actions. On the other side of this, courts have determined that estoppel can apply, but does not in situations where the physical object being raised is either "superior and separate" or presents a "substantive difference" to the paper prior art raised in IPR. Here, "ground" is interpreted to mean argument, such that estoppel applies when the device offers no arguments other than those already put forth during IPR--in other words, when litigation would be duplicative. The resolution to this question carries significant consequences for the cost, efficiency, and institutional division of labor of the patent system. This Comment argues that the AIA's text and purpose support adopting the substantive difference approach. This approach strikes a workable balance in focusing on the legal arguments to ensure that litigants are not unduly relitigating the same arguments already decided by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The substantive difference approach also advances the AIA's purpose in offering IPR as a cheaper, faster alternative to district court litigation. It also promotes a reasonable division of responsibilities between the PTAB and district courts. Overall, as this Comment explains, this interpretation best aligns with the patent system's goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the legal principles surrounding retroactive cost disallowances by the government in contractor costs. It explores historical precedents, such as the Litton Systems case, and highlights the need to differentiate between retroactive disallowance and equitable estoppel. It argues against requiring proof of government misconduct as a barrier for contractors in cases of retroactive disallowance.

The article focuses on the doctrine of assignor estoppel in patent litigation, particularly its application in both district court proceedings and inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). It discusses the implications of the Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. decision and argues for the consistent application of assignor estoppel across both types of proceedings to promote fairness and consistency in patent law.

This study offers a comparative and economic analysis of Romanian and English creditor protection methods concerning in bonis companies. The focus of the analysis is on the rules of alternative or self-help rules as well as an exploration of the theory of appearance (error communis facit ius) and estoppel from a Romanian and English perspective, to determine what is the functionality and efficiency of these methods, including law and economics considerations. Thus, we are conducting both a comparative analysis of a continental and common law system as well as an economic analysis of law. We consider efficiency problems in regard to the underlining market failure of informational asymmetry in creditor protection scenarios. We concluded with the ways in which these alternative creditor protection methods are structured and can help remedy the problems faced in the bargaining process in the creditor-debtor paradigm, offering a new perspective on the dynamics of a form of creditor protection which has not been thoroughly considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For various reasons, speakers often communicate indirectly, hiding their words' true meaning beneath an apparent surface meaning. For example, a woman trying to brush off her co-worker's date invitation might respond, "I have to prepare for a presentation tomorrow." While the words' surface meaning doesn't relate to the date invitation, the hearer usually understands the underlying message--that is to say, the words' function differs from their form. However, because the law's language ideology requires directness and surface-level meaning, lay-speaking interrogation subjects often have difficulty effectively invoking their Miranda rights. Because the legal system's search for determinacy often results in reliance on affirmative speech or actions, lay speakers often face significant disadvantages when held to the exacting expectations for legal speech because the law's insistence on direct affirmative behavior contradicts natural and frequent linguistic behaviors, which implement indirectness. Warning lay speakers about exacting legal language requirements would allow these individuals to effectively communicate in a new language environment without improperly relying on societal conversation norms while still allowing the law to maintain its affirmative language expectations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

"What remedy is available to creditors seeking to exercise diligence over corporeal moveable property in the possession of their debtors, but the ownership of which lies with another? The presumption of ownership from possession offers some relief to creditors faced with an action for vindication by the true owner of the goods. But the presumption can be overcome. However, reputed ownership seeks to permit creditors to proceed with diligence when the moveables have been fraudulently, carelessly or unnecessarily left in the possession of the relevant debtor. This article will explain that the true owner is personally barred from recovering the goods, as a result of such "fraudulent" or careless conduct. Lengthy academic discussion of the doctrine in Scotland is scarce. To analyse its legal basis, reference is made to South Africa and England, which recognise the reputed ownership context as part of the general law of estoppel. This article will also explain that despite its mostly historical significance, reputed ownership still survives in the current law, within the statutory framework of the Debt Arrangement and Attachment (Scotland) Act 2002." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focusses on an Australian piece of legislation and interesting case law, as well as on how the Federal Court of Australia has applied Australia's Corporations Act, 2001 to characterise a person as a de facto director - that is, as a professed director whose appointment as such was defective. In this regard, the decisions of that Court will, as envisaged in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 constitute persuasive authority. The Australian decision to be discussed in this article is significant in that the South African Companies Act 71 of 2008 does not contain substantively similar provisions to those of Australia's Corporations Act 2001. For example, section 66(7) of South Africa's Companies Act, 2008 contains the phrase "entitled to serve" as a director. This article explains the legal implications relevant to that expression, including whether it imposes a statutory condition precedent. This article also considers the validity of decisions taken by a person who is not "entitled to serve" as a director. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Parties have occasionally sought to use findings on jurisdiction made by a court in one country to preclude re-litigation of the same matter elsewhere. In common law countries the traditional means by which this tactic has been employed is the doctrine of issue estoppel. The aim of this article is to assess the extent to which jurisdictional determinations by foreign courts can have binding effects in other countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the years before Congress passed the America Invents Act, patent litigation became exorbitantly expensive. Congress created three types of proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), which were intended to provide a cheaper and more cost-effective alternative to district court litigation over patent validity. A major factor in ensuring that the PTAB proceedings effectively substituted for district court litigation was a harsh estoppel provision that prevented any petitioner from relitigating any issue which was raised or reasonably could have been raised during the PTAB proceeding. The Federal Circuit, however, recently applied a narrow interpretation to the estoppel provision which jeopardizes the ability of PTAB proceedings to replace district court litigation. While it would be easy to place all the blame on the Federal Circuit for defanging the estoppel provision, this Note argues that the failure of PTAB proceedings to substitute for district court litigation ultimately stems from poor drafting within the America Invents Act. The combination of broad Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) substantive rulemaking power, unreviewable PTAB decisions to institute, and a sweeping estoppel provision doomed PTAB proceedings to failure. This Note offers that Congress must update the language of the statute itself in order to effectively address the issues presented by this combination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Intimidation of arbitrators in investment law is a rarely approached but significant threat to the legitimacy of the arbitral process. The article discusses the legal basis in the relevant treaties and conventions, as well as general principles of law, in regulating the behaviour and maintaining the impartiality and independence of arbitrators. With consideration of the distinct sources of intimidation, the article pursues the complicated reality of fairly approaching intimidation that comes from different actors, in particular from one of the parties. Respecting that dismissal of a compromised arbitrator may be in line with the desires of the actor and that the arbitrators typically take the decision on whether to dismiss, alternative methods for ensuring a fair trial and due process are assessed. The article concludes by looking with a critical eye at the current structure of the system and the possibility of unknown intimidations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Estoppel is a principle of international law recognized by the International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and other courts and tribunals. And international courts and tribunals are generally consistent in setting out the requirements for invoking this principle. Nevertheless, international lawyers still doubt "its incidence and effects" and sometimes get confused with its relationship with other concepts. This article further clarifies the requirements of estoppel based on past jurisprudence. On this basis it argues that acquiescence can be regarded as a special form of estoppel. Estoppel and tacit agreement, unilateral declarations and bilateral custom are similar legal regimes but they should be distinguished from each other to avoid fragmentation. Estoppel properly defined can contribute to mutual trust and stability in the international community. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit have repeatedly emphasized the public interest in testing the validity of patents, weeding out patents that should not have been issued. But there is one important group of people the law systematically prevents from challenging bad patents. Curiously, it is the very group patent law is supposed to support: inventors themselves. The century-old doctrine of assignor estoppel precludes inventors who file patent applications from later challenging the validity or enforceability of the patents they receive. The stated rationale for assignor estoppel is that it would be unfair to allow the inventor to benefit from obtaining a patent and later change her tune and attack the patent when it benefits her to do so. The Supreme Court has traditionally disfavored the doctrine, reading it narrowly. But the Federal Circuit has expanded the doctrine in a variety of dimensions, and applied it even when the benefit to the inventor is illusory. Further, the doctrine misunderstands the role of inventor-employees in the modern world. More important, the expansive modern form of assignor estoppel interferes substantially with employee mobility. Inventors as a class are put under burdens that we apply to no other employee. If they start a company, or even go to work for an existing company in the same field, they will not be able to defend a patent suit from their old employer. The result is a sort of partial noncompete clause, one imposed without even the fiction of agreement and one that binds anyone the inventor comes in contact with after leaving the job. Abundant evidence suggests that noncompetes in general retard innovation and economic growth, and several states prohibit them outright, while all others limit them. But assignor estoppel is a federal law doctrine that overrides those state choices. It is time to rethink the doctrine of assignor estoppel. I describe the doctrine, its rationale, and how it has expanded dramatically in the past twenty-five years. I argue that the doctrine is out of touch with the realities of both modern inventing and modern patent law, and that it interferes with both the invalidation of bad patents and the goal of employee mobility. Should the Supreme Court take up the doctrine, it is unlikely to survive in its current form. Rather, it should--and will--return to its much more limited roots. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports the decision of the New Zealand Court of Appeal in the case 'Wilson Parking New Zealand Ltd v Fanshawe 136 Ltd.' concerning equitable estoppels. It argues that the Court of Appeal's approach lacked coherence due to the Court's failure to identify what exactly remedies for equitable estoppel are trying to achieve.

Questions concerning res judicata and Lis pendens in investment arbitration proceedings remain a subject of academic discussions, particularly with regard to the application of the "triple identity test". The necessity of a more coherent approach to the matter is a pressing issue amidst the criticisms of the investor-state arbitration system as a whole. Finding viable solutions to prevent multiple/parallel proceedings and contradicting decisions is crucial in further strengthening the rule of law in investment arbitration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article will review the current New Zealand approach to the formation of variation contracts. In particular, it will critique the current position taken by the Court of Appeal that either: a practical benefit can be good consideration;, or consideration is not needed for variation agreements. The article will then explore some of the implications of using estoppel as an alternative basis to enforce variation agreements when consideration has not been provided by the promisee. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent decades, major religious denominations have experienced some of the largest schisms in our nation's history, resulting in a flood of church property disputes. Unfortunately, the law governing these disputes is in disarray. Some states treat church property disputes just like disputes within other voluntary associations--applying ordinary principles of trust and property law to the deeds and other written legal instruments. Other states resolve church property disputes by deferring to religious documents such as church constitutions--even when those documents would have no legal effect under ordinary principles of trust or property law. We argue that both courts and churches are better served by relying on ordinary principles of trust and property law, and that only this approach is fully consistent with the church autonomy principles of the First Amendment. Only this approach preserves the right of churches to adopt any form of governance they wish, keeps courts from becoming entangled in religious questions, and promotes clear property rights. By contrast, deferring to internal religious documents unconstitutionally pressures churches toward more hierarchical governance, invites courts to resolve disputes over internal church rules and practices, and creates costly uncertainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A quantitative and qualitative study of international investment arbitration case law employing the concept of estoppel reveals investment tribunals' inconsistency with regard to the concept's requirements. This article discusses possible reasons why tribunals often deviate from what appears to be the established view in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice and in international law scholarship and why they do not explain their preference for one view or the other. In fact, the often striking lack of reasoning in this respect begs the question regarding the order of approach chosen and the outcome produced. In the interest of doctrinal and jurisprudential consistency, arbitrators should be more transparent with respect to their choice of view and their reasons for choosing one over another. This will sharpen the concept of estoppel both in international investment law, in particular, and in public international law, in general. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the comparison of reservation of rights in liability insurance with letters with non-waiver agreements as a means of preserving coverage defenses while investigating losses and defending insured. It mentions the application of the doctrines of estoppel and waiver in the reservation of rights in context of the excess insurance and umbrella coverage. It also discusses the attempted discovery of reservation of rights letters in the third-party cases.

The article presents important considerations for insurers and attorneys for the probable consequences of breaching the duty to defend. It mentions that in case when insured requests a defense, the insurer can defend without reservation of rights, refuse to defend or defend under reservation of rights. The article also provides estoppel considerations and highlights exceptions to the estoppel doctrine or the obligation of estoppel-like consequences in various jurisdictions.

The article discusses the Supreme Court of Texas' ruling in the 2013 case Rachal v. Reitz which deals with the claim that successor trustee and attorney Hal Rachal Jr. breached his fiduciary duty by failing to provide an accounting to the beneficiaries of a trust, and it mentions the impact of the court's judgment on arbitration provisions in trust agreements. The history of American trust law is examined, along with the intent of settlor and a direct benefits estoppel theory in Texas.

The 1954 Statelessness Convention deems a person to be stateless when the person is "not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law." Frequently, when adjudicators attempt to determine an individual's nationality, they do so with sole reference to the nationality law of the applicant's country of origin. The ordinary meaning, context, object, and purpose of this Convention's definition demonstrate that the "operation of law" includes not just nationality law, but also other legal provisions including civil registration law as well as state practice. States might fail to properly implement a nationality law, might implement it in an arbitrary or discriminatory fashion, or might implement the nationality law in light of other legal provisions or practices. In any of these cases, adopting a totality approach to an applicant's claim of statelessness is necessary to reach an accurate outcome and to protect stateless individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Pigford settlements represent the culmination of lawsuit filed by African American farmers who alleged the USDA discriminated against them by failing to investigate and respond to complaints regarding farm loans and credit daring the period from 1981-1990. For some the settlement represented a panacea; a victory for African American farmers who had suffered decades of discriminatory treatment by officials of the USDA and its various servicing agents. Still others viewed the settlement as a token compromise which allowed the government to abdicate itself from a multitude of broken promises and fraudulent practices designed to deny African American farmers access to credit opportunities and disaster aid easily obtained by white farmers. With the extension of expanded filing opportunities provided by Pigford II for those who farmed during the requisite time period, but failed to file claims during the requisite time period, thousands of African American farmers were provided an additional opportunity to file claims. Asa result of the Pigford I and Pigford II cases, Congress appropriated over two billion dollars to pay claims asserted by the farmers. Many African American farmers were disgruntled because some of the same practices which led to discriminatory practices were not abated by the settlement Order of the Court. The institutional practices complained of by the litigants persist. This paper examines the historical backdrop of discriminatory practices against African American farmers and examines the availability of post Pigford remedies such as promissory and equitable estoppel. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the parentage by estoppel and parentage presumptions in several states in the U.S. Topics discussed include modification of doctrinal approaches when assisted reproductive techniques are utilized, application of parentage by estoppel and parenting presumptions in the context of same-sex marital relationships, and parentage presumption analysis by the Supreme Court.

The article discusses the inter partes review (IPR) alternative to U.S. federal litigation in relation to patentability claims and the efforts to ensure effective patent litigation through the use of a U.S. congressional estoppel provision as of 2015. The U.S. Congress' intent for IPR is addressed, along with the nullification of invalid patents and IPR under America's Leahy Smith America Invents Act. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and America's federal courts are also examined.

The article o9ffers information on the significance of application of the new Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding in patent litigation by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) under the America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011. Topics discussed include the significance of the Patent Trial and Appeals Board, balance between the rights of the inventor and the rights of the public and the efforts of the International Trade Commission in use of doctrine of estoppel.

Este trabajo analiza el derecho de receso unilateral desde la perspectiva del asesor legal que redacta el contrato. Estudia los elementos que doctrina y jurisprudencia consideran que una cláusula de derecho de receso debe tener, para que sea válida y reconocida por un tribunal. De esa forma, si las partes insertan una cláusula de derecho de receso que siga dichos lineamientos, la rescisión unilateral del contrato por una de las partes no podrá ser considerada abusiva o ilícita. Este trabajo también analiza los tipos de plazo que las partes pueden acordar: cierto, incierto, renovable automáticamente y con opción a renovar. Asimismo, estudia las distintas formas en que las partes, voluntaria o involuntariamente, pueden limitar su derecho de receso acordado en el contrato: modificación tácita del contrato, violación del deber de buena fe y acto propio. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article looks at the creation of the entrapment by estoppel defense doctrine dating back to the Supreme Court's decision in Raley v. Ohio case. Topics discussed include role of Ogden Memorandum in an entrapment by estoppel defense; defense of entrapment by estoppel; and the 'Cox v. Louisiana' supreme court case.

Agu v Ikewibe has been widely interpreted as holding that a customary arbitration award is binding only if none of the parties rejected the award after it was made; it has been widely criticized for this reason. However, the Nigerian Supreme Court has reached decisions, subsequent to though not as notorious as Agu v Ikewibe, to the effect that post-award consent is not necessary to found a binding customary arbitration award. This article contends that Agu v Ikewibe did not indeed decide what has been ascribed to it over the years, or that, even if it did, that decision is not supported by the previous judicial authorities upon which it claimed to have relied. Reference is also made to the current predominant indications from the Nigerian Supreme Court that post-award consent is not necessary to establish a binding customary arbitration award. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Probabilistic forecasting models describe the aleatory variability of natural systems as well as our epistemic uncertainty about how the systems work. Testing a model against observations exposes ontological errors in the representation of a system and its uncertainties. We clarify several conceptual issues regarding the testing of probabilistic forecasting models for ontological errors: the ambiguity of the aleatory/epistemic dichotomy, the quantification of uncertainties as degrees of belief, the interplay between Bayesian and frequentist methods, and the scientific pathway for capturing predictability. We show that testability of the ontological null hypothesis derives from an experimental concept, external to the model, that identifies collections of data, observed and not yet observed, that are judged to be exchangeable when conditioned on a set of explanatory variables. These conditional exchangeability judgments specify observations with well-defined frequencies. Any model predicting these behaviors can thus be tested for ontological error by frequentist methods; e.g., using P values. In the forecasting problem, prior predictive model checking, rather than posterior predictive checking, is desirable because it provides more severe tests. We illustrate experimental concepts using examples from probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. Severe testing of a model under an appropriate set of experimental concepts is the key to model validation, in which we seek to know whether a model replicates the data-generating process well enough to be sufficiently reliable for some useful purpose, such as long-term seismic forecasting. Pessimistic views of system predictability fail to recognize the power of this methodology in separating predictable behaviors from those that are not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article assesses the relevance of the concept of equitable election in the operational contexts of wills and legal proceedings respectively. Topics include the option of legal proceedings, choosing of property for gifting, and the principle of promissory or equitable estoppel. It concludes that the equitable election should be guided by principles that are based on concepts like estoppel and benefit retention.

Crowdsourcing has emerged as a new production paradigm through which firms outsource traditional employee tasks to an undefined and generally large network of people, the "crowd," in the form of an open call. The relationships between the crowd and the firm vary across different crowdsourcing models and do not represent, either in fact or in theory, the employment or contractor relationships with which the law is familiar. Therefore, the law and the courts are ill-equipped to answer the questions of whether and how liability should attach to firms for the crowd's harmful conduct toward third parties. Agency law is the best lens through which to consider potential firm liability for the crowd's misconduct. Although various characteristics of crowdsourcing make this an imperfect fit, agency theories of liability offer a workable foundation for determining whether and how liability should exist in a crowdsourcing context. A crowdsourcing liability regime should encourage the twin goals of promoting innovation and responsible business practices, and courts can best achieve these goals by adapting the apparent-authority and estoppel theories of agency liability to fit different crowdsourcing models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Inter-American Human Rights system continues to be one full of surprises. On the one hand, there are State official agencies that see no distinction between the system itself and any defense in a typical criminal case, and on the other hand, there is an Inter-American Court that only exceptionally rescues the judicial internal system of the States. That was exactly what occurred in the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia case involving a tragic event where 17 civilians were killed and 27 were injured while a violent fight took place between the Colombian military and the FARC. The first part of this manuscript will feature the inconsistencies of the State -the only entity with standing before the Court- which resorted to a defense that assailed its own Judicial Branch by both denouncing an alleged fraud on the part of the Prosecutor's Office and by dismissing the decisions made by the criminal and administrative judicial instances. Ironically enough, this strategy could well be the total opposite of what an appropriate defense of the troops involved in this tragic event should look like. The second part of this manuscript will feature the form in which the Inter-American Court ended up saving the judicial branch when it labeled the grounds of the State agent (as to the defense presented before the IAHR Commission) as estoppel and when it described such behavior, without hesitation, as contrary to the principles of good faith, equity and legal stability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents the results of three questionnaire studies concerning the self-protective behavior. It mentions that in all these studies respondents indicate that they would be more likely to protect their own interests. It further discusses explanations for both prospect theory and cognitive dissonance. It explores doctrinal implications for work on disclosure, modification, and promissory estoppel.

The article presents information on New York City Police Department (NYPD) marijuana enforcement practices in reference to entrapment law of New York State. It informs increase in marijuana in public view (MPV) arrests since 1990. It analyses state entrapment law of New York State that is applied to MPV arrest and argues on the traditional entrapment and entrapment by estoppels.

The article discusses Tennessee's real property rules and their application in cases involving boundary disputes as of October 1, 2012. Several different land surveying styles are mentioned, including the metes and bounds system which utilizes geographic landmarks and monuments as boundary tools. The impact of an oral agreement between landowners in regards to a boundary dispute is also addressed, along with the legal doctrine of estoppel.

The article focuses on municipal estoppel in the land use context within the U.S. Topics include the role of a municipal officer, the disclosure of additional facts, and the implementation of municipal estoppel. Information is provided on land use laws and zoning ordinances enacted to protect public welfare.

The article presents information on estoppels concerning the tangential limitation triggering prosecution history. It discusses the tensions that exist between doctrine of equivalents and prosecution history estoppels. It presents information on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Prods. Co., which involved concerns related to modern contours of doctrine of equivalents. It explains guidelines which define the tangential limitation.

The article discusses several decisions in state Supreme Court cases relating to workers' compensation and employers' liability law during September 1, 2010 to October 19, 2011. It depicts that different standards were applied in the analysis of issues of workers' compensation by different supreme courts, and it becomes difficult to decide a case. Information on several cases is presented relating to several issues including surgery authorization estoppel, increased risk test issue relating to compensability, and wage loss. Information on Workers' Compensation Act of different states is also presented.

The article discusses the decision of Great Britain's House of Lords in Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust in which a one person who promises another person an exclusive possession for a defined term under a contract was held as a lease, not a license. It presents information on various potential ways of justifying the decision. It includes satisfaction of criteria as a contractual lease, understanding of lease on the doctrine of estoppel, and concept of relativity of title.

The article discusses the doctrines of cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel under the English law. It presents information on Great Britain's Supreme Court Case R (on the application of Coke-Wallis) v Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales in which the principle of cause of action estoppel was held appropriate for judicial review proceedings. It suggests that one should not undermine the potential significance of issue estoppel doctrine.

The article discusses insurance law in Georgia and presents a survey of Georgia state court cases. In the case of American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Co. v. Hathaway Development Co., the Georgia Supreme Court (GSC) addressed the issue of what constitutes an occurrence under a commercial general liability (CGL) policy. The negligent workmanship of a contractor, which results in property damage, is an occurrence under a CGL. The doctrines of implied waiver and estoppel are also mentioned.

Recently, the House of Lords held in Chartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd that an understanding or common assumption reached by contracting parties in the course of their pre-contractual negotiations, including "an assumption that certain words will bear a certain meaning" can provide the basis for an estoppel by convention claim. This was reaffirmed by the New Zealand Supreme Court in Vector Gas Ltd v Bay of Plenty Energy Ltd. Both the House of Lords and the Supreme Court assumed that this was well established. Given that the issue was unsettled in England and with two divergent lines of authority in Australia, the House of Lords and Supreme Court should not have assumed this. In light of this development in the law, it is also argued that where the evidence proves that the parties established an understanding as to the meaning of a term in a proposed contract, then surely that is the meaning of that term, as a matter of interpretation. In addition, allowing consideration of pre-contractual negotiations to prove an estoppel by convention has undermined the rule that pre-contractual negotiations are inadmissible as an aid to interpretation of a contract. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on restitution in a contractual context. Topics include unjust enrichment, restitution recovery in cases of breach of contract, and recovery in cases of impoverishment. Information is provided on promissory estoppel in contracts, restitution in cases of diminished capacity, and contract performance in cases of impracticability.

The article focuses on understanding judicial doctrines of finality and discusses how to distinguish law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It says that once litigation is terminated and time of appeal has run, the action is forever concluded, except with Rule 1.540 that gives court jurisdiction to relieve a party from finality. It tells that doctrine of res judicata, like the law of the case doctrine, enforces finality by discouraging relitigation of issues previously decided.

The article focuses on health care fraud in the U.S. Topics include safe harbor provisions, Medicare and Medicaid fraud, and the doctrine of entrapment by estoppel. Information is provided on the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and the U.S. federal government's ability to prosecute health care fraud through statutes.

The article discusses the issue preclusion of a court's patent claim construction in the U.S. It mentions that the interpretation of the said claim stands as an issue by itself for collateral evidence rule purposes. It points out that the preclusion should be only used to the joint issue of claim construction with infringement rather than as a solitary issue. An overview of circumstances for the construction of claims is also presented.