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.
9 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 1982–2022 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Gatesgreen2 sentences2015People v Gates, 434 Mich 146, 154 ; 452 NW2d 627 (1990). 2015People v Gates, 434 Mich 146, 154 ; 452 NW2d 627 (1990). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
William Beaumont Hospital v. Wass
green
2 sentences2022“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.” William Beaumont Hosp v Wass, 315 Mich App 392, 398 ; 889 NW2d 745 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2022“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.” William Beaumont Hosp v Wass, 315 Mich App 392, 398 ; 889 NW2d 745 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Monat v. State Farm Insurance
green
2 sentences2021Three elements are generally required for the application of collateral estoppel: “(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.”8 Monat v State Farm Ins Co, 469 Mich 679, 682-684 ; 677 NW2d 843 (2004) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2021Three elements are generally required for the application of collateral estoppel: “(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.”8 Monat v State Farm Ins Co, 469 Mich 679, 682-684 ; 677 NW2d 843 (2004) (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 2016–2021 |
Dearborn Heights School District No 7 v. Wayne County MEA/NEA
green
2 sentences2016A. COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL “The doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of an issue in a different, subsequent action between the same parties or their privies when the earlier proceeding resulted in a valid final judgment and the issue in question was actually and necessarily determined in that prior proceeding.” Dearborn Hts Sch Dist No 7 v Wayne Co MEA/NEA, 233 Mich App 120, 124 ; 592 NW2d 408 (1998). 2016A. COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL “The doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of an issue in a different, subsequent action between the same parties or their privies when the earlier proceeding resulted in a valid final judgment and the issue in question was actually and necessarily determined in that prior proceeding.” Dearborn Hts Sch Dist No 7 v Wayne Co MEA/NEA, 233 Mich App 120, 124 ; 592 NW2d 408 (1998). | 2 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Brown
green
2 sentences2020People v Brown, 279 Mich App 116, 126 ; 755 NW2d 664 (2008). 2020People v Brown, 279 Mich App 116, 126 ; 755 NW2d 664 (2008). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Storey v. Meijer, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016For collateral estoppel to apply, the following 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, 682-684 ; 677 NW2d 843 (2004), quoting Storey v Meijer, Inc, 431 Mich 368 , 373 n 3; 429 NW2d 169 (1988) (footnote omitted). 2016For collateral estoppel to apply, the following 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, 682-684 ; 677 NW2d 843 (2004), quoting Storey v Meijer, Inc, 431 Mich 368 , 373 n 3; 429 NW2d 169 (1988) (footnote omitted). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Topps-Toeller, Inc v. City of Lansing
green
2 sentences1982Topps-Toeller, Inc v Lansing, 47 Mich App 720, 727 ; 209 NW2d 843 (1973). 1982Topps-Toeller, Inc v Lansing, 47 Mich App 720, 727 ; 209 NW2d 843 (1973). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.