Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
20 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2024 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Estes v. Titusgreen2 sentences2022We disagree. “[T]he doctrine of res judicata bars a subsequent action when (1) the first action was decided on the merits, (2) the matter contested in the second action was or could have been resolved in the first, and (3) both actions involve the same parties or their privies.” Estes v Titus, 481 Mich 573, 585 ; 751 NW2d 493 (2008). 2022We disagree. “[T]he doctrine of res judicata bars a subsequent action when (1) the first action was decided on the merits, (2) the matter contested in the second action was or could have been resolved in the first, and (3) both actions involve the same parties or their privies.” Estes v Titus, 481 Mich 573, 585 ; 751 NW2d 493 (2008). | 3 | 6 |
Adair v. Stategreen2 sentences2024RES JUDICATA As stated in Adam v Bell, 311 Mich App 528, 532 ; 879 NW2d 879 (2015): The doctrine of res judicata bars a subsequent action when “(1) the prior action was decided on the merits, (2) both actions involve the same parties or their privies, and (3) the matter in the second case was, or could have been, resolved in the first.” Adair v [Michigan, 470 Mich 105, 121 ; 680 NW2d 386 (2004)]. 2024RES JUDICATA As stated in Adam v Bell, 311 Mich App 528, 532 ; 879 NW2d 879 (2015): The doctrine of res judicata bars a subsequent action when “(1) the prior action was decided on the merits, (2) both actions involve the same parties or their privies, and (3) the matter in the second case was, or could have been, resolved in the first.” Adair v [Michigan, 470 Mich 105, 121 ; 680 NW2d 386 (2004)]. | 1 | 10 |
Adam v. Bellgreen2 sentences2024RES JUDICATA As stated in Adam v Bell, 311 Mich App 528, 532 ; 879 NW2d 879 (2015): The doctrine of res judicata bars a subsequent action when “(1) the prior action was decided on the merits, (2) both actions involve the same parties or their privies, and (3) the matter in the second case was, or could have been, resolved in the first.” Adair v [Michigan, 470 Mich 105, 121 ; 680 NW2d 386 (2004)]. 2024RES JUDICATA As stated in Adam v Bell, 311 Mich App 528, 532 ; 879 NW2d 879 (2015): The doctrine of res judicata bars a subsequent action when “(1) the prior action was decided on the merits, (2) both actions involve the same parties or their privies, and (3) the matter in the second case was, or could have been, resolved in the first.” Adair v [Michigan, 470 Mich 105, 121 ; 680 NW2d 386 (2004)]. | 1 | 3 |
Reeves v. Cincinnati, Inc.green2 sentences2019See Adam v Bell, 311 Mich App 528, 532 ; 879 NW2d 879 (2015) (citation omitted) (“The doctrine of res judicata bars a subsequent action when ‘(1) the prior action was decided on the merits, (2) both actions involve the same parties or their privies, and (3) the matter in the second case was, or could have been, resolved in the first.’ ”); Reeves v Cincinnati, Inc, 208 Mich App 556, 559 ; 528 NW2d 787 (1995) (“The doctrine of law of the case holds that a ruling by an appellate court with regard to a particular issue binds the appellate court and all lower tribunals with respect to that issue.”) 2019See Adam v Bell, 311 Mich App 528, 532 ; 879 NW2d 879 (2015) (citation omitted) (“The doctrine of res judicata bars a subsequent action when ‘(1) the prior action was decided on the merits, (2) both actions involve the same parties or their privies, and (3) the matter in the second case was, or could have been, resolved in the first.’ ”); Reeves v Cincinnati, Inc, 208 Mich App 556, 559 ; 528 NW2d 787 (1995) (“The doctrine of law of the case holds that a ruling by an appellate court with regard to a particular issue binds the appellate court and all lower tribunals with respect to that issue.”) | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Bergeron v. Busch
green
2 sentences2016Res judicata is intended “to ensure the finality of judgments and to prevent repetitive litigation.” Bergeron v Busch, 228 Mich App 618, 621 ; 579 NW2d 124 (1998). 2016Res judicata is intended “to ensure the finality of judgments and to prevent repetitive litigation.” Bergeron v Busch, 228 Mich App 618, 621 ; 579 NW2d 124 (1998). | 3 | 2016–2016 |
Dart v. Dart
green
2 sentences2008The doctrine of res judicata bars a subsequent action when “(1) the first action was decided on the merits, (2) the matter contested in the second action was or could have been resolved in the first, and (3) both actions involve the same parties or their privies.”26 The doctrine bars all matters that with due diligence should have been raised in the earlier action.27 Plaintiff did not raise her claim for UFTA relief in her motion to intervene, nor was she required to do so, given that the divorce court lacked the authority to consider it. 26 Dart v Dart, 460 Mich 573, 586 ; 597 NW2d 82 (1999). 2008The doctrine of res judicata bars a subsequent action when “(1) the first action was decided on the merits, (2) the matter contested in the second action was or could have been resolved in the first, and (3) both actions involve the same parties or their privies.”26 The doctrine bars all matters that with due diligence should have been raised in the earlier action.27 Plaintiff did not raise her claim for UFTA relief in her motion to intervene, nor was she required to do so, given that the divorce court lacked the authority to consider it. 26 Dart v Dart, 460 Mich 573, 586 ; 597 NW2d 82 (1999). | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Dart v. Dart
green
2 sentences2008The doctrine of res judicata bars a subsequent action when “(1) the first action was decided on the merits, (2) the matter contested in the second action was or could have been resolved in the first, and (3) both actions involve the same parties or their privies.”26 The doctrine bars all matters that with due diligence should have been raised in the earlier action.27 Plaintiff did not raise her claim for UFTA relief in her motion to intervene, nor was she required to do so, given that the divorce court lacked the authority to consider it. 26 Dart v Dart, 460 Mich 573, 586 ; 597 NW2d 82 (1999). 2008The doctrine of res judicata bars a subsequent action when “(1) the first action was decided on the merits, (2) the matter contested in the second action was or could have been resolved in the first, and (3) both actions involve the same parties or their privies.”26 The doctrine bars all matters that with due diligence should have been raised in the earlier action.27 Plaintiff did not raise her claim for UFTA relief in her motion to intervene, nor was she required to do so, given that the divorce court lacked the authority to consider it. 26 Dart v Dart, 460 Mich 573, 586 ; 597 NW2d 82 (1999). | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Monat v. State Farm Insurance
green
2 sentences2015“Generally, for collateral estoppel to apply three elements must be satisfied: (1) a question of fact essential to the judgment must have been actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment; (2) the same parties must have had a full [and fair] opportunity to litigate the issue; and (3) there must be mutuality of estoppel.” Monat v State Farm Ins Co, 469 Mich 679, 692 ; 677 NW2d 843 (2004) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 2015“Generally, for collateral estoppel to apply three elements must be satisfied: (1) a question of fact essential to the judgment must have been actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment; (2) the same parties must have had a full [and fair] opportunity to litigate the issue; and (3) there must be mutuality of estoppel.” Monat v State Farm Ins Co, 469 Mich 679, 692 ; 677 NW2d 843 (2004) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Roberts v. City of Troy
green
2 sentences1990Roberts v City of Troy, 170 Mich App 567, 577 ; 429 NW2d 206 (1988). 1990Roberts v City of Troy, 170 Mich App 567, 577 ; 429 NW2d 206 (1988). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.