tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1454051731189268002.post5148305117396190402..comments2024-03-27T11:29:23.559-03:00Comments on Sufficient Description: Foreign Issue Estoppel in Theory and Practice Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1454051731189268002.post-69143045361219115862015-04-10T15:46:21.997-03:002015-04-10T15:46:21.997-03:00Any thoughts on this outcome, Professor Siebrasse?...Any thoughts on this outcome, Professor Siebrasse? <br /><br />It strikes me that this text: "...AstraZeneca could not prudently assume the doctrine would be applied..." invites the question of how and when the court decides whether its discretion will be exercised. It further strikes me that by having the two processes of making the underlying case and fighting over the finer legal point of issue estoppel, the court assures that its time will be wasted. My thinking is that the only rational way to proceed is for the court to hear arguments on the question of issue estoppel as a preliminary matter, weeks or months (or years, where the court's finding is appealed) before the main action proceeds, leaving enough time for trial prep in an environment where both (all) parties know what facts are settled (or not).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06577913480802430049noreply@blogger.com