146 Mich. App. 552 - Young v. Robin’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““A consent judgment differs substantially from the usual litigated judgment. It is primarily the act of the parties rather than the considered judgment of the court. Union v. Ewing [ 372 Mich. 181 , 125 N.W.2d 311 (1963)]. Cf., Tudryck v. Mutch [ 320 Mich. 99 , 30 N.W.2d 518 (1948)]. It ordinarily cannot be set aside by the court without the consent of the parties. In re Estate of Meredith, [ 275 Mich. 278 , 266 N.W. 351 , 104 ALR 348 (1936)].” Ortiz v. Travelers Ins. Co., 2 Mich.App. 548, 555 , 140 N.W.2d 791 (1966). “A consent judgment reflects primarily the agreement of the parties. Dora v. Lesinski, 351 Mich. 579, 582 , 88 N.W.2d 592 (1958). The action of the trial judge in signing a judgment based thereon is ministerial only. The parties have not litigated the matters put in issue, they have settled. The trial judge has not determined the matters put in issue, he has merely put his stamp of approval on the parties’ agreement disposing of those matters. American Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Michigan Mutual Liability Co., 64 Mich.App. 315 , 327, 235 N.W.2d 769 (1975), lv. den. 395 Mich. 830 (1976)”.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Mustaine v. Kennedy (In Re Kennedy)