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.
2 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 15 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 Husted v. Auto-Owners Insurance.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Husted v. Auto-Owners Insurance Anchor | green | “the applicability of legal doctrines such as res judicata and collateral estoppel are questions of law to be reviewed de novo.” | 10 |
| 2 | William Beaumont Hospital v. Wass | green | “the preclusion doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel serve 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.” | 5 |
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.