Search

Copyright of Selcuk Law Review / Selçuk Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi is the property of Selcuk Law Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

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]

Copyright of Collected Papers of Zagreb Law Faculty / Zbornik Pravnog Fakulteta u Zagrebu is the property of Sveuciliste u Zagrebu, Pravni Fakultet and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This contribution addresses the intersection of international human rights law and international economic law in situations where investors can bring claims under both protection systems. It discusses why multiple proceedings concerning one set of facts may be problematic and identifies situations in which duplication may occur. It presents instruments that have been developed at the domestic or international level to prevent this phenomenon. The article analyses the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as well as of investment arbitral tribunals dealing with parallel or subsequent litigations. The conclusions set out whether the mechanisms used by arbitral tribunals and the ECtHR are adequate to deal with the phenomenon of potential multiple proceedings. [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]

Copyright of Journal of Anbar University for Law & Political Sciences is the property of Republic of Iraq Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research (MOHESR) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

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.

An official misrepresentation of the law occurs when an official, acting as an agent of the state, represents what is legal or not in an erroneous or misleading way. Should reliance on such misrepresentations excuse one from criminal responsibility? American courts presently recognize two official misrepresentation defenses: Entrapment by Estoppel and Public Authority. However, there is disagreement about what constitutes these defenses and what their limits are. Part of the confusion surrounds why these defenses are justified at all, especially given the general principle ignorantia juris non excusat. We propose an answer to this justification question: these defenses are justified because official misrepresentations preclude knowledge of the illegality of the acts in question. It is not simply that someone on the receiving end did not know; they could not know. We develop this account, linking it to due process and fairness, and then use it to clarify Entrapment by Estoppel and Public Authority and argue both should be subject to important restrictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Lex Humana is the property of Lex Humana and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Over the course of the past 75 years, the International Court of Justice (icj) has adjudicated a total of 17 territorial disputes, building a considerable body of case law along the way. While the Court has shed light on many legal issues concerning territorial sovereignty over the years, it has never clarified its approach to territorial disputes. Bridging the gap between a 2004 analysis by Brian Sumner, who identified a threetiered hierarchical decision rule, and modern territorial doctrine, this study aims to provide an updated attempt at systematization of the Court's approach in its case law concerning territorial disputes. Refining Sumner's hierarchical decision rule, the findings - while overall congruent with the basic hierarchy identified in his work - suggest that the Court's approach revolves around a hierarchy of three tiers of territorial titles (understood broadly as sources of the right to territory), namely, legal instruments, State succession and intangibility of boundaries, and independent effectivités. Equity infra legem is used as a last resort tool for interpretation of these titles, where they themselves yield no clear result. Another source of the right to territory, unilateral conduct constituting acquiescence and/or estoppel, is relied on outside of this hierarchy, often to support a decision based on another title. A review of the entirety of the Court's case law reveals a relatively consistent yet multi-layered approach to territorial disputes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Article tackles two main streamlines. Firstly , the legislative updates pertaining to international arbitration within the jurisdiction. These consist in the following: (i) the establishment of a committee to work on a proposal for the amendment of the Egyptian Arbitration Law, within a limited scope of amendments; and (ii) the amendments to Prime Ministerial Decree No. 1062 of 2019 expanding the scope of review of the High Committee for Arbitration and International Disputes , by virtue of Prime Ministerial Decrees No. 2592 of 2020 and No. 3218 of 2022. Secondly , the case law updates where Egyptian courts have addressed various issues proving that the Egyptian judiciary is an arbitration-friendly seat and in alignment with international arbitration trends. Among the cited case law updates, the Egyptian Court of Cassation has expressly cited the IBA Guidelines on Conflicts of Interest in International Arbitration (2014), for the first time ever, when addressing the duty of disclosure of an arbitrator. The Court of Cassation has also set the conditions that require to be fulfilled if an arbitrator abstains from signing the arbitral award and has set definitions for deliberations and dissenting opinions. The Cairo Court of Appeal has considered the arbitrators' illness of COVID-19 as a force majeure event that interrupts the arbitration proceedings by the force of law and held that WhatsApp instant messaging constitutes a valid means of communication in arbitral proceedings as long as the fundamental principles of arbitration are observed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

In the past year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) continued to define boundaries for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court). These boundaries align more closely with congressional intent, especially with regard to the jurisdiction of the Veterans Court and the internal operations of the agency. This Area Summary discusses eight major areas in which the Federal Circuit articulated important changes in veterans law. First, the Federal Circuit revisited the important and veteran-friendly "benefit of the doubt" rule in Lynch and modified it. In Lynch, the Court analyzed the term "approximate balance" and instructed VA to liberally consider evidence and apply the benefit of the doubt rule even where the evidence is not in exact equipoise. Second, the Federal Circuit limited the Veterans Court's power to fact-find and narrowed its power to find prejudicial error in Tadlock. Third, in Anania, the Court strengthened the "mailbox" rule by finding that the claimant's, or advocate's, own affidavit sufficiently proved proper mailing. Fourth, the Court broadened the constructive possession rules relating to VA-contracted medical reports in Euzebio. Fifth, the Federal Circuit looked to principles of equity in Arellano and Taylor to determine whether tolling or estoppel may be invoked when the question relates to the effective date for the grant of VA benefits. Sixth, the Court clarified effective date rules in Kisor, George, Ortiz, and Buffington. Seventh, in Military- Veterans Advocacy, the Federal Circuit overturned three regulations promulgated under the new Appeals Modernization Act, each related to supplemental claims--a new avenue for veterans seeking to reopen earlier decisions. Finally, in Smith, the Court continued to weigh in on attorney's fees, an important issue for veterans and their advocates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

INTRODUCTION. The article contains a comprehensive analysis of one of the fundamental works on international law, which was published in the post-Soviet space - “Encyclopedias of International Law” in three volumes. The work was performed at the Institute of State and Law. V.M. Koretsky NAS of Ukraine and its methodology is based on the sociological approach of establishing the laws of social development. Its timeliness at the time of the crisis of international law is noted. This requires its adaptation to new, changing conditions of social development. However, moving forward, it is necessary to fix the clear legal structures of international law. Inaccurate definitions of legal concepts, allow their ambiguous interpretation, complicate law enforcement and allow abuse. The encyclopedia is a basis that has fixed the most advanced views to date in the field of international law. It contains the best practices of the Russian, Soviet and, in a new quality, post- Soviet school. Given the volume of material, the article highlights the 1st volume of the Encyclopedia, which adequately characterizes the entire huge array of work.MATERIALS AND METHODS. The article considers the 1st volume of the Encyclopedia of International Law in three volumes, uses scientific works presented in domestic and foreign science on the international legal regime of the Arctic sea spaces, the application of estoppel rules, regulatory and analytical material, and international judicial practice. The study is based on general scientific methods of cognition (systemic and structural approaches, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction), as well as special methods (comparative legal, historical legal, modeling).RESEARCH RESULTS. The 1st volume contains articles on international treaties, which are included in the textbooks of the course of international law and are little-known. There are articles on international organizations, specialized bodies and institutions; terms and concepts. A significant place in the Encyclopedia is given to international legal practice, including international judicial and arbitral awards. The authors of the Encyclopedia are leading scientists, many of whom have earned authority on a global level. The Preface focuses on the fact that numerous crisis phenomena and military conflicts of the last period in the world, including Ukraine, bring chaos to international relations and threaten peace and security. The Encyclopedia reflects the influence of modern challenges and threats on the level of effectiveness of the application of the principles and norms of international law, highlights the role and significance of the UN Charter. A significant place in the Encyclopedia is devoted to the historical aspects of the development of international law, starting with the treaties of Kievan Rus with Byzantium. The participation of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine as part of the USSR in the founding of the UN. Considered the collapse of the USSR, its consequences for international law. The way out of this situation is possible only by restoring the balance of forces and establishing a new world law and order on the basis of strict observance of the norms and principles of international law. Attention is paid to sharp historical topics. The encyclopedia contains a large selection of articles about personalities, among which are the founders of international law and current scientists. Some of them are given special attention in the article.CONCLUSIONS. It is concluded that Russia could revise its position, voiced by the USSR, regarding the width of territorial waters in the Arctic Ocean. The encyclopedia of international law is the first systematic work that has collected knowledge in the field of international law in the post-Soviet space. The Encyclopedia reveals the features of the legal nature of international law and the content of its basic concepts and categories.

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]

This article will focus on some of the basic practical uses of "Estoppel Doctrine" not as a mere rule of evidence but a substantive nature. Due to its strong legal background, it has acquired the status of "Substantive Rule of Law." This enlarges the ambit of its application into civil and criminal cases. This article will focus on applying the Estoppel Doctrine in criminal and civil cases followed by basic legal justifications, opinion juristic and case laws. Many research papers have studied the history of Estoppel and its application and the existing conditions and legal discussions about it. The legal debate of dividing basic legal principles categorically and logically witnesses its emergence after the innovation of modern jurisprudence. The debate of declaring "Doctrine of Estoppel" as a mere "Rule of Evidence" or "Rule of Substantial Law" was one of those innovations. We also recommend more application of this doctrine in criminal and civil cases in order to achieve the best out of it. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The subject. The article reveals the concept of “estoppel” as a mechanism prohibiting the change of position depending on the change of circumstances or the passage of time.The purpose of the paper is to identify is it possible to use estoppel in procedural relations in Russia.Methodology. The author uses the methods of the analysis of legal literature as well as the formal-legal interpretation of the Commercial Procedure Code, the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.The main results and scope of their application. The development of civil and civil procedural legal relations virtually requires the study and application of the doctrinal and practice rules that are new for Russia, but well-known abroad. Among such is the rule of estoppel. It presents a mechanism that prohibits changing of position depending on the change of circumstances or the passage of time. The rule of estoppel attracts the attention of specialists in both civil and civil procedural law, but, despite having the same name, the rule possesses different qualities in substantive and procedural law. Thus, in procedural relations it is necessary to take into account that the court is a necessary participant of any civil procedural relationship. The actions of the parties in themselves do not give rise to any legal consequences; for they must be allowed (sanctioned) by the court.The main difficulty concerns not with the application of the norms fixing the institute of estoppel, but with the court’s qualification of the case in fact as an estoppel situation. The court should receive a clear and unambiguous position from the party and fix it. Such a fixation is possible, in particular, in a decision that has entered into legal force. The estoppel by judgment used in these cases differs from other kinds of estoppel in that it prevents parties from challenging the circumstances established in a court decision. It is not connected to the actions of the party, which during the whole process defended the position opposite to that which was ultimately put by the court into the basis of the decision. In the future, a party to a new process may reiterate the same facts and circumstances that it asserted earlier. Thus, her position changes in comparison not with her own previous behavior, but rather with a valid judicial decision, which she must observe.Conclusions. The Russian legislation contains certain provisions allowing for the use of estoppel rule in procedural relations: these are, for example, rules on procedural agreements and rules concerning validity of a court decision. However, considering the specifics of procedural legal relations and the role of the court within them, and taking into account the procedural rights of the parties, the use of estoppel is only possible with the help of legally established methods for the fixation of the participant’s position and his “changing behavior”.

"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]

In most of the legal systems, the non-breaching party has numerous ways to deal with the breach and its resulting compensation. An important question raised in this case is whether the non-breaching party can choose between the related remedies and select the one which is more beneficial for him. There is a doctrine in American law, known as doctrine of election of remedies, based on which a person not only can but is required to choose one of the available remedies. According to this doctrine, election of a remedy can be final, binding and inalienable, even if, it does not supported by consideration or is not by deed, or even is not relied by the other part. Notwithstanding its precedent in American law, this doctrine has been criticized over the history. Contradictions with justice, differences in judicial procedures, principle of the accumulation of remedies and their changeability as well as lack of independence are among the criticisms. As regards the Imamiyah jurisprudence and Iranian law, it should be stated that on one hand some of the results of the aforementioned doctrine are obtained by similar institutions and foundations, and accordingly there is no need for the doctrine. On the other hand, some of the other results of the doctrine are rejected by the Iranian law and are not acceptable.