Courtney v. Feldstein
Michigan Court of Appeals
1DissentC. M. Forster, J.
I respectfully dissent.
As the majority points out, Michigan follows a broad rule of res judicata which bars not only claims actually litigated in the prior action, but every claim arising out of the same transaction which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, could have raised but did not. Gursten v Kenney, 375 Mich 330, 334-335; 134 NW2d 764 (1965); Curry v Detroit, 394 Mich 327, 332; 231 NW2d 57 (1975); Gose v Monroe Auto Equipment Co, 409 Mich 147, 160; 294 NW2d 165 (1980). Plaintiff correctly points out that her claim of fraud was not actually litigated in the divorce action and,…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Gose v. Monroe Auto Equipment Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1980
- Gursten v. KenneyMichigan Supreme Court · 1965
- Curry v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1975
- Gorman v. SobleMichigan Court of Appeals · 1982
- Rogoski v. City of MuskegonMichigan Court of Appeals · 1981
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.