78 Mich. App. 180 - Sharp v. Two Point Associates, Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““At the outset, we observe that defendants in their ‘motion for accelerated and summary judgment’ have confused res judicata with collateral estoppel. Res ju-dicata is inapplicable to the present situation because the two causes of action are different. See Howell v. Vito’s Trucking and Excavating Co., 386 Mich. 37 ; 191 N.W.2d 313 (1971). In Herzog, the doctors sued for dissolution of the partnership whereas in this case the plaintiffs sued for monetary damages based on theories of breach of fiduciary relationship, breach of contract, and third-party beneficiary. As distinguished from res judica-ta, collateral estoppel bars relitigation of issues previously decided in the first action between the same parties where the second cause of action is different from the first cause of action. Howell v. Vito’s Trucking and Excavating Co., supra, at 41-42, Jones v. Chambers, 353 Mich. 674, 680-681 ; 91 N.W.2d 889 (1958). See also Braxton v. Litchalk, 55 Mich.App. 708, 717-718 ; 223 N.W.2d 316 (1974). We note that the bar of collateral estoppel extends only to questions of fact that were ‘actually litigated’ in the previous cause of action. Senior Accountants, Analysts & Appraisers Association v. Detroit, 399 Mich. 449, 458 ; 249 N.W.2d 121 (1976), People, ex rel. Director of Conservation v. Babcock, 38 Mich.App. 336, 346 ; 196 N.W.2d 489 (1972). We defined the requirement of being ‘actually litigated’ in Sahn v. Brisson, 43 Mich.App. 666 ; 204 N.W.2d 692 (1972): “ ‘A question has not”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. In Re Morweld Steel Products Corp.