Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 68.1 (2026)
Repealed. 1974, Act 4, Imd. Eff. Jan. 30, 1974.
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
THE GENERAL LAW VILLAGE ACT
Act 3 of 1895
68.1 Repealed. 1974, Act 4, Imd. Eff. Jan. 30, 1974.
Repealed. 1974, Act 4, Imd. Eff. Jan. 30, 1974.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1973–1986 · leading case: Gose v. Monroe Auto Equip. Co., 294 N.W.2d 165 (Mich. 1980).
Gose v. Monroe Auto Equip. Co., 294 N.W.2d 165 (Mich. 1980). “1), § 68.1, p 170. *206 Neither the Court nor Justice WILLIAMS indicates why this general exception [22] to the rule of preclusion should not be given operative effect in workers' compensation cases.”
Socialist Workers Party v. Sec'y of State, 317 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 1982). “There are exceptions to the doctrine, such as found in Restatement Judgments, 2d (Tentative Draft No 1, 1973), § 68.1, pp 170-171: "Although an issue is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment,…”
Hackley v. Hackley, 395 N.W.2d 906 (Mich. 1986). “[7] Socialist Workers Party quoted from Restatement Judgments, 2d (Tentative Draft No 1, 1973), § 68.1, pp 170-171, which became Restatement Judgments, 2d, § 28, pp 273-274.”
Young v. Detroit City Clerk, 207 N.W.2d 126 (Mich. 1973). “1, 1973 states the following exceptions to the use of the doctrine of res judicata in § 68.1: "Although an issue is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment, relitigation of the *339 issue in a subsequent…”
Riley v. Northland Geriatric Ctr., 391 N.W.2d 331 (Mich. 1986). “Socialist Workers Party quoted from Restatement Judgments, 2d (Tentative Draft No 1, 1973), § 68.1, pp 170-171, which became Restatement Judgments, 2d, § 28.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 68.1(a) — 1 case
Gose v. Monroe Auto Equip. Co., 294 N.W.2d 165 (Mich. 1980). “1), § 68.1, p 170. *206 Neither the Court nor Justice WILLIAMS indicates why this general exception [22] to the rule of preclusion should not be given operative effect in workers' compensation cases.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 68.1(b) — 1 case
Young v. Detroit City Clerk, 207 N.W.2d 126 (Mich. 1973). “1, 1973 states the following exceptions to the use of the doctrine of res judicata in § 68.1: "Although an issue is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment, relitigation of the *339 issue in a subsequent…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 68.1(b)(ii) — 1 case
Socialist Workers Party v. Sec'y of State, 317 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. 1982). “There are exceptions to the doctrine, such as found in Restatement Judgments, 2d (Tentative Draft No 1, 1973), § 68.1, pp 170-171: "Although an issue is actually litigated and determined by a valid and final judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.