Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
22 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1958–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arkansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Szego v. Kingsley Anyanwutakugreen2 sentences2004See id. citing Szego v. Anyanwutaku, 651 A.2d 315 (D.C. 2000Szego v. Anyanwutaku, 651 A.2d 315 (D.C. | 1 | 2 |
Jones v. Raygreen2 sentences2000Jones v. Ray, 54 Ark. 1998Cater v. Cater, 311 Ark. 627 , 846 S.W.2d 173 (1993); see also Jones v. Ray, 54 Ark.App. 336 , 925 S.W.2d 805 (1996). | 1 | 2 |
Elliot v. Maverick Transportationgreen1 sentence2008See, e.g., Elliot v. Maverick Transp., 87 Ark. | 1 | 1 |
Coats v. Gardnergreen2 sentences2007App. at 171-72 , 965 S.W.2d at 808 ; see also Coats v. Gardner, 333 Ark. 581 , 970 S.W.2d 802 (1998) (holding that the election-of-remedies doctrine barred claims against an employer after the injured employee received a settlement from the workers’ compensation carrier for the employee’s injuries). 2007App. at 171-72 , 965 S.W.2d at 808 ; see also Coats v. Gardner, 333 Ark. 581 , 970 S.W.2d 802 (1998) (holding that the election-of-remedies doctrine barred claims against an employer after the injured employee received a settlement from the workers’ compensation carrier for the employee’s injuries). | 1 | 1 |
Lively v. Libbey Memorial Physical Medical Center, Inc.green2 sentences1997Lively v. Libbey Memorial Physical Medical Ctr., 317 Ark. 5, 9 , 875 S.W.2d 507, 509 (1994), citing Gentry v. Jett, 235 Ark. 20 , 365 S.W.2d 736 (1962). 1997Lively v. Libbey Memorial Physical Medical Ctr., 317 Ark. 5, 9 , 875 S.W.2d 507, 509 (1994), citing Gentry v. Jett, 235 Ark. 20 , 365 S.W.2d 736 (1962). | 1 | 1 |
Cady v. Rainwatergreen2 sentences1986The doctrine of election of remedies “applies only between the parties to a transaction so that one party may seek cancellation and then sue a third party for procuring the transaction through fraud.” 12 S. Williston, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts § 1528 (3d ed. 1970); accord, Cady v.Rainwater, 129 Ark. 498 , 196 S.W. 125 (1917). 1986The doctrine of election of remedies “applies only between the parties to a transaction so that one party may seek cancellation and then sue a third party for procuring the transaction through fraud.” 12 S. Williston, A Treatise on the Law of Contracts § 1528 (3d ed. 1970); accord, Cady v.Rainwater, 129 Ark. 498 , 196 S.W. 125 (1917). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Walt Bennett Ford, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021Pennington v. Harvest Foods, Inc., 326 Ark. 704 , 934 S.W.2d 485 (1996); Smith v. Walt Bennett Ford, Inc., 314 Ark. 591 , 864 S.W.2d 817 (1993). 2021Pennington v. Harvest Foods, Inc., 326 Ark. 704 , 934 S.W.2d 485 (1996); Smith v. Walt Bennett Ford, Inc., 314 Ark. 591 , 864 S.W.2d 817 (1993). | 3 | 2005–2021 |
Pennington v. Harvest Foods, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021Pennington v. Harvest Foods, Inc., 326 Ark. 704 , 934 S.W.2d 485 (1996); Smith v. Walt Bennett Ford, Inc., 314 Ark. 591 , 864 S.W.2d 817 (1993). 2021Pennington v. Harvest Foods, Inc., 326 Ark. 704 , 934 S.W.2d 485 (1996); Smith v. Walt Bennett Ford, Inc., 314 Ark. 591 , 864 S.W.2d 817 (1993). | 3 | 2005–2021 |
Wilson v. Fullerton
green
2 sentences2004Wilson v. Fullerton, 332 Ark. 111 , 964 S.W.2d 208 (1998). 2004Wilson v. Fullerton, 332 Ark. 111 , 964 S.W.2d 208 (1998). | 2 | 2000–2004 |
Riverside Furniture Corp. v. Rogers
neutral
2 sentences1997Lively v. Libbey Memorial Physical Medical Ctr., supra; Riverside Furniture Co. v. Rodgers, 295 Ark. 452 , 749 S.W.2d 664 (1988). 1997Lively v. Libbey Memorial Physical Medical Ctr., supra; Riverside Furniture Co. v. Rodgers, 295 Ark. 452 , 749 S.W.2d 664 (1988). | 2 | 1994–1997 |
DLC Props. LLC v. Carmike Cinemas Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2015DLC also contends that the trial court erred by denying its motion for new trial because (1) the verdict violated the doctrine of election of remedies, (2) there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of damages on the conversion claim, and (3) there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of damages for the unlawful detainer and entry Cite as 2015 Ark. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Regions Bank v. Griffin
green
2 sentences2011Regions Bank v. Griffin, 364 Ark. 193 , 217 S.W.3d 829 (2005); Pennington v. Harvest Foods, Inc., 326 Ark. 704 , 934 S.W.2d 485 (1996); Smith v. Walt Bennett Ford, Inc., 314 Ark. 591 , 864 S.W.2d 817 (1993). 2011Regions Bank v. Griffin, 364 Ark. 193 , 217 S.W.3d 829 (2005); Pennington v. Harvest Foods, Inc., 326 Ark. 704 , 934 S.W.2d 485 (1996); Smith v. Walt Bennett Ford, Inc., 314 Ark. 591 , 864 S.W.2d 817 (1993). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Haney v. Phillips
green
1 sentence2010App. 202 , 35 S.W.3d 373 (2000), that the trial court had erred in applying the election-of-remedies doctrine to bar a foreclosure action after the mortgagee had sued on the promissory note. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Zenith Insurance Co. v. VNE, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2007App. at 171-72 , 965 S.W.2d at 808 ; see also Coats v. Gardner, 333 Ark. 581 , 970 S.W.2d 802 (1998) (holding that the election-of-remedies doctrine barred claims against an employer after the injured employee received a settlement from the workers’ compensation carrier for the employee’s injuries). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Gourley v. Crossett Public Schools
green
1 sentence2005In Gourley, we stated that “Ms. Gourley’s claim for the intentional tort is barred by the doctrine of election of remedies because she has previously pursued workers’ compensation benefits to recovery for the same injuries.” Id. at 181 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Biddle v. Smith & Campbell, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2004App. 46 , 773 S.W.2d 840 (1989), the Towery court held that the election of remedies doctrine did not bar the appellant’s claim. “[Wjhether an election of remedies was made depends on whether the claimant actively initiated proceedings or knowingly received benefits pursuant to the laws of another state.” Towery, 75 Ark. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Towery v. Hi-Speed Electrical Co.
neutral
2 sentences2004Elliot argues that the Commission erred in finding that his claim was barred by the election of remedies doctrine because, although he received some workers’ compensation benefits from the Illinois claim, _he did not proceed to a hearing on the merits, “but instead the same were either dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction or voluntarily dismissed.” In Towery v. Hi-Speed Electrical Co., 75 Ark. 2004App. 167 , 56 S.W.3d 391 (2001), the employer-appellee in a workers’ compensation action argued that the appellant’s claim was barred by the election of remedies doctrine. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Eastburn v. Galyen
green
2 sentences2002Eastburn v. Galyen, 229 Ark. 70 , 313 S.W.2d 794 (1958). 2002Eastburn v. Galyen, 229 Ark. 70 , 313 S.W.2d 794 (1958). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Sharpp v. Stodghill
green
1 sentence2002Sharpp v. Stodghill, 191 Ark. 500 , 86 S.W.2d 934 (1935). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Cater v. Cater
green
2 sentences1998Cater v. Cater, 311 Ark. 627 , 846 S.W.2d 173 (1993); see also Jones v. Ray, 54 Ark.App. 336 , 925 S.W.2d 805 (1996). 1998Cater v. Cater, 311 Ark. 627 , 846 S.W.2d 173 (1993); see also Jones v. Ray, 54 Ark.App. 336 , 925 S.W.2d 805 (1996). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Travelers Insurance v. Smith
green
2 sentences1998Co. v. Smith, 329 Ark. 336 , 947 S.W.2d 382 (1997), in which the widow of an employee fatally injured in a trucking accident sued the employer and its insurance carrier, in circuit court for misrepresentation and outrage. 1998Co. v. Smith, 329 Ark. 336 , 947 S.W.2d 382 (1997), in which the widow of an employee fatally injured in a trucking accident sued the employer and its insurance carrier, in circuit court for misrepresentation and outrage. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Heil v. Shriners' Hospital for Crippled Children
green
1 sentence1997Lively v. Libbey Memorial Physical Medical Ctr., 317 Ark. 5, 9 , 875 S.W.2d 507, 509 (1994), citing Gentry v. Jett, 235 Ark. 20 , 365 S.W.2d 736 (1962). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Gentry v. Jett
green
1 sentence1997Lively v. Libbey Memorial Physical Medical Ctr., 317 Ark. 5, 9 , 875 S.W.2d 507, 509 (1994), citing Gentry v. Jett, 235 Ark. 20 , 365 S.W.2d 736 (1962). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Bertig Bros. v. Independent Gin Co.
green
1 sentence1992Quoting from Bertig Bros. v. Independent Gin Co., 147 Ark. 581 , 228 S.W.2d 392 (1921), we wrote in the Henderson case: [W]ithin the general doctrine of election of remedies, . . . it is the duty of the party, where he has two remedies, one of which is limited in scope and the other general in scope, to adopt, in the first instance, the remedy which will give complete relief; otherwise he is bound by his election to pursue the limited remedy. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Toney v. Haskins
neutral
2 sentences1989Toney v. Haskins, 111 Ark. 190 , 608 S.W.2d 28 (Ark. 1989Id. at 198, 608 S.W.2d at 32 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Greenspan v. Miller
green
1 sentence1989Toney v. Haskins, 111 Ark. 190 , 608 S.W.2d 28 (Ark. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Owens v. Bill & Tony's Liquor Store
neutral
2 sentences1980Owens v. Bill and Tony’s Liquor Store, 258 Ark. 887 , 529 S.W. 2d 354 (1974). 1980Owens v. Bill and Tony’s Liquor Store, 258 Ark. 887 , 529 S.W. 2d 354 (1974). | 1 | 1980–1980 |
H. E. McConnell & Son v. Sadle
green
2 sentences1980Haskins also cites McConnell and Son v. Sadie, 248 Ark. 1182 , 455 S.W. 2d 880 (1970), saying an appeal will not be permitted where taken piecemeal resulting only in delay. 1980Haskins also cites McConnell and Son v. Sadie, 248 Ark. 1182 , 455 S.W. 2d 880 (1970), saying an appeal will not be permitted where taken piecemeal resulting only in delay. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
Heskett v. Fisher Laundry & Cleaners Co.
green
2 sentences1975ELECTION OF REMEDIES: The appellees, to sustain the trial court’s ruling that appellant is barred by the doctrine of election of remedies, point to the reasoning of this Court in Heskett v. Fisher Laundry & Cleaners Company, Inc., 217 Ark. 350 , 230 S.W. 2d 28 (1950). 1975ELECTION OF REMEDIES: The appellees, to sustain the trial court’s ruling that appellant is barred by the doctrine of election of remedies, point to the reasoning of this Court in Heskett v. Fisher Laundry & Cleaners Company, Inc., 217 Ark. 350 , 230 S.W. 2d 28 (1950). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Harris v. Whitworth, Administrator
green
2 sentences1958Appellants stress the holding in Harris v. Whitworth, Admr., 213 Ark. 480 , 211 S. W. 2d 101 , and the cases cited therein. 1958Appellants stress the holding in Harris v. Whitworth, Admr., 213 Ark. 480 , 211 S. W. 2d 101 , and the cases cited therein. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.