11 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1959–2024 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland 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 |
|---|---|---|
Surratts Associates v. Prince George's Countygreen2 sentences2024Ctr., 300 Md. 520, 535 (1984) (“It is a well-settled rule . . . that where a particular set of facts gives rise to alternative causes of action, they may be brought together in one declaration, and where several remedies are requested, an election is not required prior to final judgment.” (citations omitted)); Surratts Assocs. v. Prince George’s Cnty., 286 Md. 555, 568 (1979) (stating that a “final judgment” is one of the “necessary elements” to trigger application of the doctrine of election of remedies); Alexandria Nat’l Bank, 263 Md. at 150 (“The decisions of this [C]ourt have recognized th 2024Ctr., 300 Md. 520, 535 (1984) (“It is a well-settled rule . . . that where a particular set of facts gives rise to alternative causes of action, they may be brought together in one declaration, and where several remedies are requested, an election is not required prior to final judgment.” (citations omitted)); Surratts Assocs. v. Prince George’s Cnty., 286 Md. 555, 568 (1979) (stating that a “final judgment” is one of the “necessary elements” to trigger application of the doctrine of election of remedies); Alexandria Nat’l Bank, 263 Md. at 150 (“The decisions of this [C]ourt have recognized th | 4 | 6 |
Widgeon v. Eastern Shore Hospital Centergreen2 sentences2024Ctr., 300 Md. 520, 535 (1984) (“It is a well-settled rule . . . that where a particular set of facts gives rise to alternative causes of action, they may be brought together in one declaration, and where several remedies are requested, an election is not required prior to final judgment.” (citations omitted)); Surratts Assocs. v. Prince George’s Cnty., 286 Md. 555, 568 (1979) (stating that a “final judgment” is one of the “necessary elements” to trigger application of the doctrine of election of remedies); Alexandria Nat’l Bank, 263 Md. at 150 (“The decisions of this [C]ourt have recognized th 2024Ctr., 300 Md. 520, 535 (1984) (“It is a well-settled rule . . . that where a particular set of facts gives rise to alternative causes of action, they may be brought together in one declaration, and where several remedies are requested, an election is not required prior to final judgment.” (citations omitted)); Surratts Assocs. v. Prince George’s Cnty., 286 Md. 555, 568 (1979) (stating that a “final judgment” is one of the “necessary elements” to trigger application of the doctrine of election of remedies); Alexandria Nat’l Bank, 263 Md. at 150 (“The decisions of this [C]ourt have recognized th | 3 | 3 |
City of Baltimore v. Mooregreen2 sentences1974It is initially clear that “[t]he doctrine of election of remedies ... prohibits a party, having a choice of two or more remedies, from selecting one and, after a judgment is rendered on the merits, then seeking to recover on the other remedy.” Levin v. Singer, 227 Md. 47, 60 , 175 A. 2d 423 ; City of Baltimore v. Moore, 209 Md. 516 , 121 A. 2d 857 . 1974It is initially clear that “[t]he doctrine of election of remedies ... prohibits a party, having a choice of two or more remedies, from selecting one and, after a judgment is rendered on the merits, then seeking to recover on the other remedy.” Levin v. Singer, 227 Md. 47, 60 , 175 A. 2d 423 ; City of Baltimore v. Moore, 209 Md. 516 , 121 A. 2d 857 . | 1 | 3 |
State Roads Commission v. Smithgreen2 sentences1983State Roads Comm., supra at 541; see also 18 Am. 1966State Roads Comm’n v. Smith, 224 Md. 537, 541-44 , 168 A. 2d 705 (1961); Bolton Mines Co. v. Stokes, 82 Md. 50, 59 , 33 Atl. 491 (1895). | 1 | 2 |
W. Carey Crutcher, Etc. v. The Aetna Life Insurance Co., Aetna Life Insurance Co. And Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. W. Carey Crutchergreen1 sentence2024Co., 746 F.2d 1076, 1081 (5th Cir. 1984)); In re Bache-Wiig, 299 B.R. at 249 . | 1 | 1 |
In Re Mitchellgreen1 sentence2024Thus, “bringing both of them does not trigger the application of the election of remedies doctrine.” Id.; accord In re Mitchell, 281 B.R. at 92 (stating that “[m]erely obtaining a 50 judgment” on a promissory note, “when [the] judgment remains uncollected[,]” does not “give rise to the bar of election of remedies”) (citing Crutcher v. Aetna Life Ins. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Petillo v. Stein
green
2 sentences1974They seem to be groping for, but not quite articulating, the doctrine of election of remedies, “sometimes known as the doctrine of election, ... a species of estoppel.” Petillo v. Stein, 184 Md. 644, 651 , 42 A. 2d 675 . 1974They seem to be groping for, but not quite articulating, the doctrine of election of remedies, “sometimes known as the doctrine of election, ... a species of estoppel.” Petillo v. Stein, 184 Md. 644, 651 , 42 A. 2d 675 . | 2 | 1959–1974 |
Bache-Wiig v. Fournier (In Re Bache-Wiig)
green
1 sentence2024Co., 746 F.2d 1076, 1081 (5th Cir. 1984)); In re Bache-Wiig, 299 B.R. at 249 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Haynie v. National Gypsum Corp.
green
2 sentences2008Surratts Assocs. v. Prince George’s County, 286 Md. 555, 568 , 408 A.2d 1323 (1979); Haynie v. Nat’l Gypsum Corp., 62 Md.App. 528, 533 , 490 A.2d 724 (1985). 2008Surratts Assocs. v. Prince George’s County, 286 Md. 555, 568 , 408 A.2d 1323 (1979); Haynie v. Nat’l Gypsum Corp., 62 Md.App. 528, 533 , 490 A.2d 724 (1985). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Shoreham Developers, Inc. v. Randolph Hills, Inc.
green
1 sentence1985Thus, “if one of these is pursued to judgment, the other is barred.” Id. 6 It is normally at *563 the behest of the defendant that the doctrine of election of remedies is applied. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Hearing v. Citizens Band & Trust Co.
green
2 sentences1985“The purpose of the doctrine of election of remedies is ... to prevent double redress for a single wrong.” Herring v. Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 21 Md.App. 517, 543 , 321 A.2d 182 (1974) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). 1985“The purpose of the doctrine of election of remedies is ... to prevent double redress for a single wrong.” Herring v. Citizens Bank & Trust Co., 21 Md.App. 517, 543 , 321 A.2d 182 (1974) (citation omitted) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Kansas City Live Stock Commission Co. v. Bank of Hamlin
neutral
2 sentences1974In a case involving a factual and legal situation similar to that which faced the appellee Bank in the present case, the Supreme Court of Kansas, in Kansas City v. Bank of Hamlin, 79 Kan. 761 , 101 P. 617 , discussed the inapplicability of the doctrine of election of remedies, at 101 P. 618 : “The only question presented is whether or not the holder of a chattel mortgage can proceed by attachment to collect his debt, without waiving the mortgage security. 1974In a case involving a factual and legal situation similar to that which faced the appellee Bank in the present case, the Supreme Court of Kansas, in Kansas City v. Bank of Hamlin, 79 Kan. 761 , 101 P. 617 , discussed the inapplicability of the doctrine of election of remedies, at 101 P. 618 : “The only question presented is whether or not the holder of a chattel mortgage can proceed by attachment to collect his debt, without waiving the mortgage security. | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Levin v. Singer
green
2 sentences1974It is initially clear that “[t]he doctrine of election of remedies ... prohibits a party, having a choice of two or more remedies, from selecting one and, after a judgment is rendered on the merits, then seeking to recover on the other remedy.” Levin v. Singer, 227 Md. 47, 60 , 175 A. 2d 423 ; City of Baltimore v. Moore, 209 Md. 516 , 121 A. 2d 857 . 1974It is initially clear that “[t]he doctrine of election of remedies ... prohibits a party, having a choice of two or more remedies, from selecting one and, after a judgment is rendered on the merits, then seeking to recover on the other remedy.” Levin v. Singer, 227 Md. 47, 60 , 175 A. 2d 423 ; City of Baltimore v. Moore, 209 Md. 516 , 121 A. 2d 857 . | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Bolton Mines Co. v. Stokes
green
2 sentences1966State Roads Comm’n v. Smith, 224 Md. 537, 541-44 , 168 A. 2d 705 (1961); Bolton Mines Co. v. Stokes, 82 Md. 50, 59 , 33 Atl. 491 (1895). 1966State Roads Comm’n v. Smith, 224 Md. 537, 541-44 , 168 A. 2d 705 (1961); Bolton Mines Co. v. Stokes, 82 Md. 50, 59 , 33 Atl. 491 (1895). | 1 | 1966–1966 |
Beall v. Pearre
green
1 sentence1959See City of Baltimore v. Moore, 209 Md. 516, 523-524 , 121 A. 2d 857 ; Petillo v. Stein, 184 Md. 644, 651 , 42 A. 2d 675 ; Beall v. Pearre, 12 Md. 550, 566 , each of which deals with the doctrine of election of remedies, though none of them is directly in point on the facts and the Petillo case recognized the doctrine but held it inapplicable. | 1 | 1959–1959 |
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.