Legal Opinion

Svitojus v. Kurant

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 3, 1940No. Docket No. 91, Calendar No. 40,615PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtNorth, J.

For the reasons hereinafter stated, the circuit judge’s decree dismissing plaintiffs’ bill of complaint should be affirmed. A question of first importance is; whether the decree entered in the Federal court for the western district of Michigan should be held to be res judicata of the present suit. Plaintiffs are residents and citizens of the Republic of Lithuania, and defendants are residents of this State. Obviously plaintiffs planted their former suit in the Federal court because of diversity of citizenship. The record on this-appeal clearly discloses that the parties litigant in the…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Gott v. CulpMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
  2. Weigley v. Coffman, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1891
  3. Buchanan v. BuchananSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1909
  4. Foote v. FooteMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  5. Snyder v. SnyderMichigan Supreme Court · 1902

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. In Re Svitojus' EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1941
  2. Kurant v. Kent Probate JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1943
  3. In Re Svitojus' EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1943
  4. Svitojus v. SmolenskiMichigan Supreme Court · 1941
  5. In Re Svitojus' EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1943

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API