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.
12 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
John Hancock Financial Services, Inc. v. Old Kent Bankgreen2 sentences2017“This language is broad and encompasses many circumstances.” John Hancock Fin Servs, Inc v -2- Old Kent Bank, 185 F Supp 2d 771, 777 (ED Mich, 2002), aff’d 346 F3d 727 (CA 6, 2003).1 In contrast, MCL 440.3406 “limits the preclusion defense to instances in which ‘an alteration of an instrument’ or ‘the making of a forged signature’ occurs.” Id. 2017“This language is broad and encompasses many circumstances.” John Hancock Fin Servs, Inc v -2- Old Kent Bank, 185 F Supp 2d 771, 777 (ED Mich, 2002), aff’d 346 F3d 727 (CA 6, 2003).1 In contrast, MCL 440.3406 “limits the preclusion defense to instances in which ‘an alteration of an instrument’ or ‘the making of a forged signature’ occurs.” Id. | 2 | 2 |
Pierson Sand and Gravel, Inc. v. Keeler Brass Co.green2 sentences2019See Pierson Sand & Gravel, Inc v Keeler Brass Co, 460 Mich 372, 382-383 ; 596 NW2d 153 (1999); VanVorous, 262 Mich App at 469 ; Howell v Vito’s Trucking & Excavating Co, 386 Mich 37, 41 ; 191 NW2d 313 (1971). 2019See Pierson Sand & Gravel, Inc v Keeler Brass Co, 460 Mich 372, 382-383 ; 596 NW2d 153 (1999); VanVorous, 262 Mich App at 469 ; Howell v Vito’s Trucking & Excavating Co, 386 Mich 37, 41 ; 191 NW2d 313 (1971). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Minicuci v. Scientific Data Management, Inc
green
2 sentences2016We disagree. -9- “Application of a preclusion doctrine represents a question of law that we review de novo.” Minicuci v Sci Data Mgt, Inc, 243 Mich App 28, 34 ; 620 NW2d 657 (2000). 2016We disagree. -9- “Application of a preclusion doctrine represents a question of law that we review de novo.” Minicuci v Sci Data Mgt, Inc, 243 Mich App 28, 34 ; 620 NW2d 657 (2000). | 4 | 2016–2025 |
John Hancock Financial Services, Inc. v. Old Kent Bank
green
2 sentences2017“This language is broad and encompasses many circumstances.” John Hancock Fin Servs, Inc v -2- Old Kent Bank, 185 F Supp 2d 771, 777 (ED Mich, 2002), aff’d 346 F3d 727 (CA 6, 2003).1 In contrast, MCL 440.3406 “limits the preclusion defense to instances in which ‘an alteration of an instrument’ or ‘the making of a forged signature’ occurs.” Id. 2017“This language is broad and encompasses many circumstances.” John Hancock Fin Servs, Inc v -2- Old Kent Bank, 185 F Supp 2d 771, 777 (ED Mich, 2002), aff’d 346 F3d 727 (CA 6, 2003).1 In contrast, MCL 440.3406 “limits the preclusion defense to instances in which ‘an alteration of an instrument’ or ‘the making of a forged signature’ occurs.” Id. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Nummer v. Department of Treasury
green
2 sentences2004As a preclusion doctrine, collateral estoppel serves “an important function in resolving disputes by imposing a state of finality to litigation where the same parties have previously had a full and fair opportunity to adjudicate their claims.” Nummer v Dep’t of Treasury, 448 Mich 534, 541 ; 533 NW2d 250 (1995) (emphasis added). 2004As a preclusion doctrine, collateral estoppel serves “an important function in resolving disputes by imposing a state of finality to litigation where the same parties have previously had a full and fair opportunity to adjudicate their claims.” Nummer v Dep’t of Treasury, 448 Mich 534, 541 ; 533 NW2d 250 (1995) (emphasis added). | 2 | 2000–2004 |
People v. Robinson
green
2 sentences2020By contrast, this Court has described the law-of-the-case doctrine as “a weak sister of the doctrine of preclusion, which includes the principle of res judicata.” See People v Phillips, 227 Mich App 28, 34 ; 575 NW2d 784 (1997). 2020By contrast, this Court has described the law-of-the-case doctrine as “a weak sister of the doctrine of preclusion, which includes the principle of res judicata.” See People v Phillips, 227 Mich App 28, 34 ; 575 NW2d 784 (1997). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
VanVorous v. Burmeister
green
1 sentence2019See Pierson Sand & Gravel, Inc v Keeler Brass Co, 460 Mich 372, 382-383 ; 596 NW2d 153 (1999); VanVorous, 262 Mich App at 469 ; Howell v Vito’s Trucking & Excavating Co, 386 Mich 37, 41 ; 191 NW2d 313 (1971). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Howell v. Vito's Trucking and Excavating Co.
green
2 sentences2019See Pierson Sand & Gravel, Inc v Keeler Brass Co, 460 Mich 372, 382-383 ; 596 NW2d 153 (1999); VanVorous, 262 Mich App at 469 ; Howell v Vito’s Trucking & Excavating Co, 386 Mich 37, 41 ; 191 NW2d 313 (1971). 2019See Pierson Sand & Gravel, Inc v Keeler Brass Co, 460 Mich 372, 382-383 ; 596 NW2d 153 (1999); VanVorous, 262 Mich App at 469 ; Howell v Vito’s Trucking & Excavating Co, 386 Mich 37, 41 ; 191 NW2d 313 (1971). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Hackley v. Hackley
green
2 sentences2016“The doctrine of res judicata was judicially created in order to ‘relieve parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on adjudication.’ ” Hackley v Hackley, 426 Mich 582, 584 ; 395 NW2d 906 (1986), quoting Allen v McCurry, 449 US 90, 94 ; 101 S Ct 411 ; 66 L Ed 2d 308 (1980). 2016“The doctrine of res judicata was judicially created in order to ‘relieve parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on adjudication.’ ” Hackley v Hackley, 426 Mich 582, 584 ; 395 NW2d 906 (1986), quoting Allen v McCurry, 449 US 90, 94 ; 101 S Ct 411 ; 66 L Ed 2d 308 (1980). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Allen v. McCurry
green
2 sentences2016“The doctrine of res judicata was judicially created in order to ‘relieve parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on adjudication.’ ” Hackley v Hackley, 426 Mich 582, 584 ; 395 NW2d 906 (1986), quoting Allen v McCurry, 449 US 90, 94 ; 101 S Ct 411 ; 66 L Ed 2d 308 (1980). 2016“The doctrine of res judicata was judicially created in order to ‘relieve parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserve judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encourage reliance on adjudication.’ ” Hackley v Hackley, 426 Mich 582, 584 ; 395 NW2d 906 (1986), quoting Allen v McCurry, 449 US 90, 94 ; 101 S Ct 411 ; 66 L Ed 2d 308 (1980). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Locricchio v. Evening News Ass'n
green
1 sentence1998Locricchio, supra. The law of the case doctrine is a weak sister of the doctrine of preclusion, which includes the principle of res judicata. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 1564 v. Southeastern Michigan Transportation Authority
green
1 sentence1996Id. | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.