Informal appeal processes are akin to attempts by the parties to resolve the claim; such dealings do not give rise to
an estoppel argument.
The court did not have to get to
the estoppel argument because the «not in writing» argument failed so completely.
@Upnorth I pondered
an estoppel argument, similar to a mistrial deliberately caused by a defendant, but I don't think that it fits a fact pattern where the fraud (fake evidence) is left out in the world at the crime scene as opposed to something in the courtroom itself (e.g. setting the court house on fire).
We have considerable experience in pursuing and resisting
estoppel arguments and have dealt with rectification claims both by way of summary judgment and at a full hearing.
Not exact matches
Additionally, the SJC rejected Otis»
arguments that judicial
estoppel should not be applied because: (1) Otis is bringing the present suit as an assignee of Cusick and is therefore presenting Cusick's claims, not his own; (2) Otis himself did not make inconsistent statement under oath concerning his comparative negligence; and (3) the SJC previously rejected use of judicial
estoppel in cases of assignment of legal malpractice claims.
(And in the case of Member States, we should also take into account the «
estoppel»
argument, just like in Ratti, Emmott and plenty other cases.)
[238] I would expect that [the patentee's]
argument would never have made it to a trial in the US where the principle of file wrapper
estoppel applies.
You are making an
argument along the lines of promissory
estoppel, but this requires reliance on a promise (roughly).
Their view accords with my own in any event but, in my judgement, therefore, the decisions of the English Courts do create an issue
estoppel against the Defendant in raising the
argument that the waiver is insufficient where recognition, enforcement and execution are concerned.
Even though the case law Samsung cites gives Judge Koh more than enough ammunition to at least stay the case, Samsung's lawyers also present an
argument that would enable the district court to reject Apple's demand for premature enforcement even if the court interpreted the Federal Circuit's mandate the way Apple proposes: «Manifest injustice would warrant deviation from a decision rejecting, without briefing, collateral
estoppel or a stay»
Apple argued that the Federal Circuit's appellate ruling required the court to enter partial final judgment for Apple «immediately» and that the appeals court had implicitly rejected Samsung's
argument that Apple's defeat before a Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) last year had the effect of collateral
estoppel on the parties» first California litigation.
I'm imagining that some form of
estoppel or detrimental reliance would be the
argument (IAALB [I am a lawyer but...]-RRB-.
TMT sought to rely upon these representations in support of its
arguments on
estoppel and remoteness.
[238] I would expect that SG's
argument would never have made it to a trial in the US where the principle of file wrapper
estoppel applies.
Although it is not necessary for me to deal with the
argument that the object of an
estoppel is to avoid detriment and not to make good the assumption on which it is founded, it is convenient that I note my agreement with Mason C.J. that the substantive doctrine of
estoppel permits a court to do what is required to avoid detriment and does not, in every case, require the making good of the assumption.
Parties should consider including an appropriately drafted non-reliance clause, but this may not protect a party from an
argument based on misrepresentation or
estoppel if there is clear evidence that one party gave a promise that was intended to be acted upon.
He turned to the landlord's alternative
argument in
estoppel.
Estoppel certificates eliminate the «but I had an agreement with the previous owner...»
arguments at a later time.