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 2 courts 1962–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Braxton v. Litchalkgreen2 sentences1983In Braxton v Litchalk, 55 Mich App 708, 717-718 ; 223 NW2d 316 (1974), this Court discussed the two doctrines: "[T]he doctrine of res judicata is applicable to a second suit involving the same cause of action as that raised in the first suit, and will bar the relitigation of issues which actually were or might have been presented before the court in the first action. 1983In Braxton v Litchalk, 55 Mich App 708, 717-718 ; 223 NW2d 316 (1974), this Court discussed the two doctrines: "[T]he doctrine of res judicata is applicable to a second suit involving the same cause of action as that raised in the first suit, and will bar the relitigation of issues which actually were or might have been presented before the court in the first action. | 1 | 4 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Topps-Toeller, Inc v. City of Lansing
green
2 sentences1983As noted in Topps-Toeller, Inc v Lansing, 47 Mich App 720, 726-727 ; 209 NW2d 843 (1973), lv den 390 Mich 788 (1973), res *572 judicata bars a subsequent suit between the same parties or their privies when the same cause of action is raised in a subsequent suit, and when the facts or evidence essential to the maintenance of both actions are identical. 1983As noted in Topps-Toeller, Inc v Lansing, 47 Mich App 720, 726-727 ; 209 NW2d 843 (1973), lv den 390 Mich 788 (1973), res *572 judicata bars a subsequent suit between the same parties or their privies when the same cause of action is raised in a subsequent suit, and when the facts or evidence essential to the maintenance of both actions are identical. | 5 | 1974–1983 |
Jones v. Chambers
green
2 sentences1983The distinction between res judicata and collateral estoppel was aptly described in Braxton v Litchalk, 55 Mich App 708, 717-718 ; 223 NW2d 316 (1974): *398 "According to the general rules discussed in Howell v Vito’s Trucking & Excavating Co, 386 Mich 37, 41-42 ; 191 NW2d 313 (1971), and Jones v Chambers, 353 Mich 674, 680-681 ; 91 NW2d 889 (1958), the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to a second suit involving the same cause of action as that raised in the first suit, and will bar the relitigation of issues which actually were or might have been presented before the court in the first 1983The distinction between res judicata and collateral estoppel was aptly described in Braxton v Litchalk, 55 Mich App 708, 717-718 ; 223 NW2d 316 (1974): *398 "According to the general rules discussed in Howell v Vito’s Trucking & Excavating Co, 386 Mich 37, 41-42 ; 191 NW2d 313 (1971), and Jones v Chambers, 353 Mich 674, 680-681 ; 91 NW2d 889 (1958), the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to a second suit involving the same cause of action as that raised in the first suit, and will bar the relitigation of issues which actually were or might have been presented before the court in the first | 4 | 1974–1983 |
Howell v. Vito's Trucking and Excavating Co.
green
2 sentences1983The distinction between res judicata and collateral estoppel was aptly described in Braxton v Litchalk, 55 Mich App 708, 717-718 ; 223 NW2d 316 (1974): *398 "According to the general rules discussed in Howell v Vito’s Trucking & Excavating Co, 386 Mich 37, 41-42 ; 191 NW2d 313 (1971), and Jones v Chambers, 353 Mich 674, 680-681 ; 91 NW2d 889 (1958), the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to a second suit involving the same cause of action as that raised in the first suit, and will bar the relitigation of issues which actually were or might have been presented before the court in the first 1983The distinction between res judicata and collateral estoppel was aptly described in Braxton v Litchalk, 55 Mich App 708, 717-718 ; 223 NW2d 316 (1974): *398 "According to the general rules discussed in Howell v Vito’s Trucking & Excavating Co, 386 Mich 37, 41-42 ; 191 NW2d 313 (1971), and Jones v Chambers, 353 Mich 674, 680-681 ; 91 NW2d 889 (1958), the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to a second suit involving the same cause of action as that raised in the first suit, and will bar the relitigation of issues which actually were or might have been presented before the court in the first | 4 | 1974–1983 |
Pierson Sand and Gravel, Inc. v. Keeler Brass Co.
green
2 sentences2019Pierson Sand & Gravel, Inc v Keeler Brass Co, 460 Mich 372, 379 ; 596 NW2d 153 (1999). 2019Pierson Sand & Gravel, Inc v Keeler Brass Co, 460 Mich 372, 379 ; 596 NW2d 153 (1999). | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Ayers v. Genter
green
1 sentence1967As between identical parties, this matter has been settled as to res judicata by our Supreme Court in Ayers v. Genter (1962), 367 Mich 675 , wherein it is stated, “It is clear that in this jurisdiction the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to a decsion rendered in workmen’s compensation proceedings.” Unlike Ayers , however, the parties in the instant appeal are not identical with those involved in the workmen’s compensation proceedings. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
American Life Insurance Co. v. Balmer
green
1 sentence1962Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co. v. Bissell, 220 Mich 352 ( 28 ALR 874 ); American Life Insurance Co. v. Balmer, 238 Mich 580 ; Besonen v. Campbell, 243 Mich 209 ; Hebert v. Ford Motor Co., 285 Mich 607 . | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Besonen v. Campbell
green
1 sentence1962Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co. v. Bissell, 220 Mich 352 ( 28 ALR 874 ); American Life Insurance Co. v. Balmer, 238 Mich 580 ; Besonen v. Campbell, 243 Mich 209 ; Hebert v. Ford Motor Co., 285 Mich 607 . | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Hebert v. Ford Motor Co.
green
1 sentence1962Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co. v. Bissell, 220 Mich 352 ( 28 ALR 874 ); American Life Insurance Co. v. Balmer, 238 Mich 580 ; Besonen v. Campbell, 243 Mich 209 ; Hebert v. Ford Motor Co., 285 Mich 607 . | 1 | 1962–1962 |
Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Bissell
green
2 sentences1962Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co. v. Bissell, 220 Mich 352 ( 28 ALR 874 ); American Life Insurance Co. v. Balmer, 238 Mich 580 ; Besonen v. Campbell, 243 Mich 209 ; Hebert v. Ford Motor Co., 285 Mich 607 . 1962Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co. v. Bissell, 220 Mich 352 ( 28 ALR 874 ); American Life Insurance Co. v. Balmer, 238 Mich 580 ; Besonen v. Campbell, 243 Mich 209 ; Hebert v. Ford Motor Co., 285 Mich 607 . | 1 | 1962–1962 |
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.