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.
14 South Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2021 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by South Carolina 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 |
|---|---|---|
Austin v. Stokes-Craven Holding Corp.green2 sentences2013Thus, because the recovery of attorney’s fees under the Dealer’s Act was not duplicative of the award of punitive damages, the majority found that a decision in favor of Austin would not violate “the election of remedies doctrine’s prevention of double redress for a single wrong.” Id. 2012“As its name states, the doctrine applies to the election of ‘remedies’ not the election of ‘verdicts.’ ” Austin, 387 S.C. at 57 , 691 S.E.2d at 153 (defining a “ ‘remedy’ as ‘[t]he means by which ... the violation of a right is ... compensated.’ ” (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1163 (5th ed.1979))). | 2 | 3 |
United Laboratories, Inc. v. Kuykendallgreen2 sentences2021The decision noted one purpose of the election of remedies doctrine is to "prevent double redress for a single wrong." Id. at 379 (quoting Smith v. Oil Corp., 79 S.E.2d 880, 885 (N.C. 1954)). 2010See, e.g., United Labs., Inc. v. Kuykendall, 335 N.C. 183 , 437 S.E.2d 374 (1993). | 1 | 2 |
Harper v. Ethridgegreen2 sentences1990Cf. Harper, 290 S.C. 112 , 348 S.E. 374 . *15 Finally, Inman argues Imperial has waived its right to invoke the doctrine of election of remedies. 1987See Harper v. Ethridge, 290 S. C. 112, 348 S. E. (2d) 374 (Ct. App. 1986) (discussion of the doctrine of election of remedies). | 1 | 2 |
Smith v. Gulf Oil Corp.green2 sentences2021Therefore, "a party may not recover punitive damages for tortious conduct and treble damages for a violation of Chapter 75 based on that same conduct." Id. 2021The decision noted one purpose of the election of remedies doctrine is to "prevent double redress for a single wrong." Id. at 379 (quoting Smith v. Oil Corp., 79 S.E.2d 880, 885 (N.C. 1954)). | 1 | 1 |
Eason v. Easongreen2 sentences2014"Waiver is a voluntary and intentional abandonment or relinquishment of a known right." Eason v. Eason, 384 S.C. 473, 480 , 682 S.E.2d 804, 807 (2009) (quoting Parker v. Parker, 313 S.C. 482, 487 , 443 S.E.2d 388, 391 (1994)). 2014"Waiver is a voluntary and intentional abandonment or relinquishment of a known right." Eason v. Eason, 384 S.C. 473, 480 , 682 S.E.2d 804, 807 (2009) (quoting Parker v. Parker, 313 S.C. 482, 487 , 443 S.E.2d 388, 391 (1994)). | 1 | 1 |
Parker v. Parkergreen2 sentences2014"Waiver is a voluntary and intentional abandonment or relinquishment of a known right." Eason v. Eason, 384 S.C. 473, 480 , 682 S.E.2d 804, 807 (2009) (quoting Parker v. Parker, 313 S.C. 482, 487 , 443 S.E.2d 388, 391 (1994)). 2014"Waiver is a voluntary and intentional abandonment or relinquishment of a known right." Eason v. Eason, 384 S.C. 473, 480 , 682 S.E.2d 804, 807 (2009) (quoting Parker v. Parker, 313 S.C. 482, 487 , 443 S.E.2d 388, 391 (1994)). | 1 | 1 |
Gray v. Holloway Construction Co.green1 sentence2008Gray v. Holloway Construction Co., 834 S.W.2d 277, 279 (Tenn.1992). | 1 | 1 |
Inman v. Imperial Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.green2 sentences2007See Tomlinson v. Mixon , 367 S.C. 467, 470 , 626 S.E.2d 43, 44-45 (Ct. App. 2006) (holding the purpose of the doctrine of election of remedies “is to prevent double redress for a single wrong.”); see also Inman v. Imperial Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. , 303 S.C. 10, 15 , 397 S.E.2d 774, 777 (Ct. App. 1990) (“[T]he trial judge should on his own motion require election if he lets both causes of action go to the jury.”). 2007See Tomlinson v. Mixon , 367 S.C. 467, 470 , 626 S.E.2d 43, 44-45 (Ct. App. 2006) (holding the purpose of the doctrine of election of remedies “is to prevent double redress for a single wrong.”); see also Inman v. Imperial Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. , 303 S.C. 10, 15 , 397 S.E.2d 774, 777 (Ct. App. 1990) (“[T]he trial judge should on his own motion require election if he lets both causes of action go to the jury.”). | 1 | 1 |
Tomlinson v. Mixongreen2 sentences2007See Tomlinson v. Mixon , 367 S.C. 467, 470 , 626 S.E.2d 43, 44-45 (Ct. App. 2006) (holding the purpose of the doctrine of election of remedies “is to prevent double redress for a single wrong.”); see also Inman v. Imperial Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. , 303 S.C. 10, 15 , 397 S.E.2d 774, 777 (Ct. App. 1990) (“[T]he trial judge should on his own motion require election if he lets both causes of action go to the jury.”). 2007See Tomlinson v. Mixon , 367 S.C. 467, 470 , 626 S.E.2d 43, 44-45 (Ct. App. 2006) (holding the purpose of the doctrine of election of remedies “is to prevent double redress for a single wrong.”); see also Inman v. Imperial Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. , 303 S.C. 10, 15 , 397 S.E.2d 774, 777 (Ct. App. 1990) (“[T]he trial judge should on his own motion require election if he lets both causes of action go to the jury.”). | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Medenicagreen2 sentences2006See Taylor, 324 S.C. at 218 , 479 S.E.2d at 45 ; Creach v. Sara Lee Corp., 331 S.C. 461 , 502 S.E.2d 923 (Ct.App.1998); Jones v. Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc., 318 S.C. 171 , 456 S.E.2d 429 (Ct.App.1995). 2006See Taylor, 324 S.C. at 218 , 479 S.E.2d at 45 ; Creach v. Sara Lee Corp., 331 S.C. 461 , 502 S.E.2d 923 (Ct.App.1998); Jones v. Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc., 318 S.C. 171 , 456 S.E.2d 429 (Ct.App.1995). | 1 | 1 |
Cowart v. Pooregreen2 sentences2006Brown, 320 S.C. at 294 , 465 S.E.2d at 95 ; Harbin v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas, 316 S.C. 423 , 450 S.E.2d 112 (Ct.App.1994); see also Cowart, 337 S.C. at 364 , 523 S.E.2d at 185 (purpose of doctrine of election of remedies is to prevent double redress for a single wrong). 2006Brown, 320 S.C. at 294 , 465 S.E.2d at 95 ; Harbin v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas, 316 S.C. 423 , 450 S.E.2d 112 (Ct.App.1994); see also Cowart, 337 S.C. at 364 , 523 S.E.2d at 185 (purpose of doctrine of election of remedies is to prevent double redress for a single wrong). | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Pennsylvania Millers Mutual Insurancegreen1 sentence2006Id. at 40, 354 S.E.2d at 795 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in South Carolina. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc.
green
2 sentences2006See Taylor, 324 S.C. at 218 , 479 S.E.2d at 45 ; Creach v. Sara Lee Corp., 331 S.C. 461 , 502 S.E.2d 923 (Ct.App.1998); Jones v. Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc., 318 S.C. 171 , 456 S.E.2d 429 (Ct.App.1995). 2006See Taylor, 324 S.C. at 218 , 479 S.E.2d at 45 ; Creach v. Sara Lee Corp., 331 S.C. 461 , 502 S.E.2d 923 (Ct.App.1998); Jones v. Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc., 318 S.C. 171 , 456 S.E.2d 429 (Ct.App.1995). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Walker v. McDonald
green
2 sentences2006Tzouvelekas v. Tzouvelekas, 206 S.C. 90 , 33 S.E.2d 73 (1945); Walker v. McDonald, 136 S.C. 231 , 134 S.E. 222 (1926); Boardman v. Lovett Enterprises, Inc., 283 S.C. 425 , 323 S.E.2d 784 (Ct.App.1984). 2006Tzouvelekas v. Tzouvelekas, 206 S.C. 90 , 33 S.E.2d 73 (1945); Walker v. McDonald, 136 S.C. 231 , 134 S.E. 222 (1926); Boardman v. Lovett Enterprises, Inc., 283 S.C. 425 , 323 S.E.2d 784 (Ct.App.1984). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Tzouvelekas v. Tzouvelekas
green
2 sentences2006Tzouvelekas v. Tzouvelekas, 206 S.C. 90 , 33 S.E.2d 73 (1945); Walker v. McDonald, 136 S.C. 231 , 134 S.E. 222 (1926); Boardman v. Lovett Enterprises, Inc., 283 S.C. 425 , 323 S.E.2d 784 (Ct.App.1984). 2006Tzouvelekas v. Tzouvelekas, 206 S.C. 90 , 33 S.E.2d 73 (1945); Walker v. McDonald, 136 S.C. 231 , 134 S.E. 222 (1926); Boardman v. Lovett Enterprises, Inc., 283 S.C. 425 , 323 S.E.2d 784 (Ct.App.1984). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Creach v. Sara Lee Corp.
green
2 sentences2006See Taylor, 324 S.C. at 218 , 479 S.E.2d at 45 ; Creach v. Sara Lee Corp., 331 S.C. 461 , 502 S.E.2d 923 (Ct.App.1998); Jones v. Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc., 318 S.C. 171 , 456 S.E.2d 429 (Ct.App.1995). 2006See Taylor, 324 S.C. at 218 , 479 S.E.2d at 45 ; Creach v. Sara Lee Corp., 331 S.C. 461 , 502 S.E.2d 923 (Ct.App.1998); Jones v. Winn-Dixie Greenville, Inc., 318 S.C. 171 , 456 S.E.2d 429 (Ct.App.1995). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Boardman v. Lovett Enterprises, Inc.
green
2 sentences2006Tzouvelekas v. Tzouvelekas, 206 S.C. 90 , 33 S.E.2d 73 (1945); Walker v. McDonald, 136 S.C. 231 , 134 S.E. 222 (1926); Boardman v. Lovett Enterprises, Inc., 283 S.C. 425 , 323 S.E.2d 784 (Ct.App.1984). 2006Tzouvelekas v. Tzouvelekas, 206 S.C. 90 , 33 S.E.2d 73 (1945); Walker v. McDonald, 136 S.C. 231 , 134 S.E. 222 (1926); Boardman v. Lovett Enterprises, Inc., 283 S.C. 425 , 323 S.E.2d 784 (Ct.App.1984). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Brown v. Felkel
green
2 sentences2006Brown, 320 S.C. at 294 , 465 S.E.2d at 95 ; Harbin v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas, 316 S.C. 423 , 450 S.E.2d 112 (Ct.App.1994); see also Cowart, 337 S.C. at 364 , 523 S.E.2d at 185 (purpose of doctrine of election of remedies is to prevent double redress for a single wrong). 2006Brown, 320 S.C. at 294 , 465 S.E.2d at 95 ; Harbin v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas, 316 S.C. 423 , 450 S.E.2d 112 (Ct.App.1994); see also Cowart, 337 S.C. at 364 , 523 S.E.2d at 185 (purpose of doctrine of election of remedies is to prevent double redress for a single wrong). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Harbin v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas
green
2 sentences2006Brown, 320 S.C. at 294 , 465 S.E.2d at 95 ; Harbin v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas, 316 S.C. 423 , 450 S.E.2d 112 (Ct.App.1994); see also Cowart, 337 S.C. at 364 , 523 S.E.2d at 185 (purpose of doctrine of election of remedies is to prevent double redress for a single wrong). 2006Brown, 320 S.C. at 294 , 465 S.E.2d at 95 ; Harbin v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas, 316 S.C. 423 , 450 S.E.2d 112 (Ct.App.1994); see also Cowart, 337 S.C. at 364 , 523 S.E.2d at 185 (purpose of doctrine of election of remedies is to prevent double redress for a single wrong). | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Baeza v. Robert E. Lee Chrysler, Plymouth, Dodge, Inc.
green
2 sentences2006“This rule rests on the principle that the plaintiff should have a full opportunity to prove his claim to some form of relief, but he should not receive a double recovery.” Id. at 473 , 309 S.E.2d at 766 . 3 For the doctrine of election of remedies to apply, therefore, two or more remedies must be available to the complaining party at the time of the election and these remedies must be inconsistent. 4 An inconsistency exists where, if an election is not made, a party will receive a double recovery. 5 Here, the Tomlinsons recovered damages on claims of breach of contract and negligent misrepres 2006“This rule rests on the principle that the plaintiff should have a full opportunity to prove his claim to some form of relief, but he should not receive a double recovery.” Id. at 473 , 309 S.E.2d at 766 . 3 For the doctrine of election of remedies to apply, therefore, two or more remedies must be available to the complaining party at the time of the election and these remedies must be inconsistent. 4 An inconsistency exists where, if an election is not made, a party will receive a double recovery. 5 Here, the Tomlinsons recovered damages on claims of breach of contract and negligent misrepres | 1 | 2006–2006 |
McNaughton-McKay Electric Co. v. Andrich
green
2 sentences1999Id. 1999Id. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Hernandez v. Chavez Roofing, Inc.
green
2 sentences1997The fourth case, Hernandez v. Chavez Roofing, 235 Cal.App.3d 1092 , 286 Cal.Rptr. 919 (1991), like Baldwin and Zocco , involved an action against a subcontractor who failed to obtain workers' compensation coverage even though the general contractor had coverage to which the employee might have been entitled. 1997The fourth case, Hernandez v. Chavez Roofing, 235 Cal.App.3d 1092 , 286 Cal.Rptr. 919 (1991), like Baldwin and Zocco , involved an action against a subcontractor who failed to obtain workers' compensation coverage even though the general contractor had coverage to which the employee might have been entitled. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.