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.
7 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1976–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ashe v. Swensongreen2 sentences1995In Ashe v Swenson, 397 US 436 ; 90 S Ct 1189 ; 25 L Ed 2d 469 (1970), the United States Supreme Court defined collateral *497 estoppel and concluded that the Double Jeopardy Clause encompasses the concept of issue preclusion: "Collateral estoppel” is an awkward phrase, but it stands for an extremely important principle in our adversary system of justice. 1995In Ashe v Swenson, 397 US 436 ; 90 S Ct 1189 ; 25 L Ed 2d 469 (1970), the United States Supreme Court defined collateral *497 estoppel and concluded that the Double Jeopardy Clause encompasses the concept of issue preclusion: "Collateral estoppel” is an awkward phrase, but it stands for an extremely important principle in our adversary system of justice. | 1 | 7 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
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.