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.
5 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 20 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Mrozek v. Intra Financial Corp..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mrozek v. Intra Financial Corp. Anchor | green | “the question of fact or law that is sought to be precluded actually must have been litigated in a previous action and have been necessary to the judgment.” | 5 |
| 2 | Michelle T. Ex Rel. Sumpter v. Crozier | green | “a looser, equities-based interpretation of the doctrine.” | 5 |
| 3 | Mrozek v. Intra Financial Corp. | green | “determine whether it is fundamentally fair to employ issue preclusion given the circumstances of the particular case at hand.” | 4 |
| 4 | Hlavinka v. Blunt, Ellis & Loewi, Inc. | green | “when an issue of fact or law is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment, the determination is conclusive in a subsequent action between the parties, whether on the same or a different claim.” | 3 |
| 5 | Briesemeister v. Lehner | green | “not justified or privileged to interfere” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.