election of remedies doctrine in Oklahoma

1935Co. v. Arnold, 94 Okla. 120 , 221 P. 19 , in the first syllabus, we said: “The doctrine of election of remedies applies only where there are two or more remedies existing at the time the election is made.” The trial court therefore erred in requir *388 ing the plaintiff: to elect between a remedy which it did not have, that is, to assess its moneyed capital, surplus and undivided ¡profits in the years in question prior to the legal removal of defendant’s residence to Beckham county, and a remedy which it did have, that is, to assess any physical prop erty or personal property, both tangible an

1935Co. v. Arnold, 94 Okla. 120 , 221 P. 19 , in the first syllabus, we said: “The doctrine of election of remedies applies only where there are two or more remedies existing at the time the election is made.” The trial court therefore erred in requir *388 ing the plaintiff: to elect between a remedy which it did not have, that is, to assess its moneyed capital, surplus and undivided ¡profits in the years in question prior to the legal removal of defendant’s residence to Beckham county, and a remedy which it did have, that is, to assess any physical prop erty or personal property, both tangible an

2020Such a party is restricted to the defense of the relief it was granted below.") (citation omitted). 45 In re M.K.T. , 2016 OK 4 , ¶ 88, 368 P.3d 771, 799 (appellee's legal issues in support of a District Court's judgment or decree and which are presented in an appellate answer brief are limited in scope by their application to those facts shown in the certified record on appeal). 46 1979 OK 71 , 595 P.2d 435 . 47 2003 OK 30 , 66 P.3d 442 . 48 2013 OK 88 , 313 P.3d 917 . 49 Holley , 2013 OK 88 , ¶ 8, 313 P.3d 917, 923-924 . 50 Hines v. Superior Court of Okmulgee County , 1967 OK 188 , 435 P.2

2020Such a party is restricted to the defense of the relief it was granted below.") (citation omitted). 45 In re M.K.T. , 2016 OK 4 , ¶ 88, 368 P.3d 771, 799 (appellee's legal issues in support of a District Court's judgment or decree and which are presented in an appellate answer brief are limited in scope by their application to those facts shown in the certified record on appeal). 46 1979 OK 71 , 595 P.2d 435 . 47 2003 OK 30 , 66 P.3d 442 . 48 2013 OK 88 , 313 P.3d 917 . 49 Holley , 2013 OK 88 , ¶ 8, 313 P.3d 917, 923-924 . 50 Hines v. Superior Court of Okmulgee County , 1967 OK 188 , 435 P.2

2020Howell v. James , 1991 OK 47 , 818 P.2d 444, 466-448 .

2018As it pertains to Van Eaton's argument, the Court in Howell , found that the Oklahoma version of Federal Rule 8(e)(2) was very similar "with one important exception." Id. , ¶ 11, 818 P.2d at 447 .

1967It is equally apparent that if a party pursues a supposed but nonexistent remedy, that the doctrine is not applicable.” See also Tulsa Rig, Reel & Manufacturing Co. v. Arnold, 94 Okl., 120 , 221 P. 19 ; Larkin v. Tallant, 201 Okl. 436 , 206 P.2d 982, 986 ; Fourth National Bank of Tulsa v. Eidson, 205 Okl. 145 , 236 P.2d 491, 495 ; and 6 A.L.R.2d 10 , 25 Am.Jur.2d, Election of Remedies, § 22, p. 664.

1967It is equally apparent that if a party pursues a supposed but nonexistent remedy, that the doctrine is not applicable.” See also Tulsa Rig, Reel & Manufacturing Co. v. Arnold, 94 Okl., 120 , 221 P. 19 ; Larkin v. Tallant, 201 Okl. 436 , 206 P.2d 982, 986 ; Fourth National Bank of Tulsa v. Eidson, 205 Okl. 145 , 236 P.2d 491, 495 ; and 6 A.L.R.2d 10 , 25 Am.Jur.2d, Election of Remedies, § 22, p. 664.

2020Such a party is restricted to the defense of the relief it was granted below.") (citation omitted). 45 In re M.K.T. , 2016 OK 4 , ¶ 88, 368 P.3d 771, 799 (appellee's legal issues in support of a District Court's judgment or decree and which are presented in an appellate answer brief are limited in scope by their application to those facts shown in the certified record on appeal). 46 1979 OK 71 , 595 P.2d 435 . 47 2003 OK 30 , 66 P.3d 442 . 48 2013 OK 88 , 313 P.3d 917 . 49 Holley , 2013 OK 88 , ¶ 8, 313 P.3d 917, 923-924 . 50 Hines v. Superior Court of Okmulgee County , 1967 OK 188 , 435 P.2

2020Such a party is restricted to the defense of the relief it was granted below.") (citation omitted). 45 In re M.K.T. , 2016 OK 4 , ¶ 88, 368 P.3d 771, 799 (appellee's legal issues in support of a District Court's judgment or decree and which are presented in an appellate answer brief are limited in scope by their application to those facts shown in the certified record on appeal). 46 1979 OK 71 , 595 P.2d 435 . 47 2003 OK 30 , 66 P.3d 442 . 48 2013 OK 88 , 313 P.3d 917 . 49 Holley , 2013 OK 88 , ¶ 8, 313 P.3d 917, 923-924 . 50 Hines v. Superior Court of Okmulgee County , 1967 OK 188 , 435 P.2

2020Such a party is restricted to the defense of the relief it was granted below.") (citation omitted). 45 In re M.K.T. , 2016 OK 4 , ¶ 88, 368 P.3d 771, 799 (appellee's legal issues in support of a District Court's judgment or decree and which are presented in an appellate answer brief are limited in scope by their application to those facts shown in the certified record on appeal). 46 1979 OK 71 , 595 P.2d 435 . 47 2003 OK 30 , 66 P.3d 442 . 48 2013 OK 88 , 313 P.3d 917 . 49 Holley , 2013 OK 88 , ¶ 8, 313 P.3d 917, 923-924 . 50 Hines v. Superior Court of Okmulgee County , 1967 OK 188 , 435 P.2

2020Such a party is restricted to the defense of the relief it was granted below.") (citation omitted). 45 In re M.K.T. , 2016 OK 4 , ¶ 88, 368 P.3d 771, 799 (appellee's legal issues in support of a District Court's judgment or decree and which are presented in an appellate answer brief are limited in scope by their application to those facts shown in the certified record on appeal). 46 1979 OK 71 , 595 P.2d 435 . 47 2003 OK 30 , 66 P.3d 442 . 48 2013 OK 88 , 313 P.3d 917 . 49 Holley , 2013 OK 88 , ¶ 8, 313 P.3d 917, 923-924 . 50 Hines v. Superior Court of Okmulgee County , 1967 OK 188 , 435 P.2

2020Such a party is restricted to the defense of the relief it was granted below.") (citation omitted). 45 In re M.K.T. , 2016 OK 4 , ¶ 88, 368 P.3d 771, 799 (appellee's legal issues in support of a District Court's judgment or decree and which are presented in an appellate answer brief are limited in scope by their application to those facts shown in the certified record on appeal). 46 1979 OK 71 , 595 P.2d 435 . 47 2003 OK 30 , 66 P.3d 442 . 48 2013 OK 88 , 313 P.3d 917 . 49 Holley , 2013 OK 88 , ¶ 8, 313 P.3d 917, 923-924 . 50 Hines v. Superior Court of Okmulgee County , 1967 OK 188 , 435 P.2

2020Such a party is restricted to the defense of the relief it was granted below.") (citation omitted). 45 In re M.K.T. , 2016 OK 4 , ¶ 88, 368 P.3d 771, 799 (appellee's legal issues in support of a District Court's judgment or decree and which are presented in an appellate answer brief are limited in scope by their application to those facts shown in the certified record on appeal). 46 1979 OK 71 , 595 P.2d 435 . 47 2003 OK 30 , 66 P.3d 442 . 48 2013 OK 88 , 313 P.3d 917 . 49 Holley , 2013 OK 88 , ¶ 8, 313 P.3d 917, 923-924 . 50 Hines v. Superior Court of Okmulgee County , 1967 OK 188 , 435 P.2

2020Such a party is restricted to the defense of the relief it was granted below.") (citation omitted). 45 In re M.K.T. , 2016 OK 4 , ¶ 88, 368 P.3d 771, 799 (appellee's legal issues in support of a District Court's judgment or decree and which are presented in an appellate answer brief are limited in scope by their application to those facts shown in the certified record on appeal). 46 1979 OK 71 , 595 P.2d 435 . 47 2003 OK 30 , 66 P.3d 442 . 48 2013 OK 88 , 313 P.3d 917 . 49 Holley , 2013 OK 88 , ¶ 8, 313 P.3d 917, 923-924 . 50 Hines v. Superior Court of Okmulgee County , 1967 OK 188 , 435 P.2

1991As support for his argument, Howell cites Freemon v. Pearce, 133 Okl. 41 , 270 P. 1095 (1928) and Delzell v. Couch, 150 Okl. 207 , 299 P. 913 (1931), which applied the doctrine of election of remedies.

1991As support for his argument, Howell cites Freemon v. Pearce, 133 Okl. 41 , 270 P. 1095 (1928) and Delzell v. Couch, 150 Okl. 207 , 299 P. 913 (1931), which applied the doctrine of election of remedies.

1991As support for his argument, Howell cites Freemon v. Pearce, 133 Okl. 41 , 270 P. 1095 (1928) and Delzell v. Couch, 150 Okl. 207 , 299 P. 913 (1931), which applied the doctrine of election of remedies.

1991As support for his argument, Howell cites Freemon v. Pearce, 133 Okl. 41 , 270 P. 1095 (1928) and Delzell v. Couch, 150 Okl. 207 , 299 P. 913 (1931), which applied the doctrine of election of remedies.

1968In Dudley v. King, Okl., 285 P.2d 425 , we said: “There are three essential elements of the doctrine of election of remedies, (a) the existence of two or more remedies, (b) inconsistency between the remedies, and (c) choice, with knowledge of the facts, of one of the remedies; and if any one of these elements is absent, the result of preclusion does not follow.” As we have previously pointed out, the plaintiff’s argument does not demonstrate that these three elements were present in this case.

1967It is equally apparent that if a party pursues a supposed but nonexistent remedy, that the doctrine is not applicable.” See also Tulsa Rig, Reel & Manufacturing Co. v. Arnold, 94 Okl., 120 , 221 P. 19 ; Larkin v. Tallant, 201 Okl. 436 , 206 P.2d 982, 986 ; Fourth National Bank of Tulsa v. Eidson, 205 Okl. 145 , 236 P.2d 491, 495 ; and 6 A.L.R.2d 10 , 25 Am.Jur.2d, Election of Remedies, § 22, p. 664.

1967It is equally apparent that if a party pursues a supposed but nonexistent remedy, that the doctrine is not applicable.” See also Tulsa Rig, Reel & Manufacturing Co. v. Arnold, 94 Okl., 120 , 221 P. 19 ; Larkin v. Tallant, 201 Okl. 436 , 206 P.2d 982, 986 ; Fourth National Bank of Tulsa v. Eidson, 205 Okl. 145 , 236 P.2d 491, 495 ; and 6 A.L.R.2d 10 , 25 Am.Jur.2d, Election of Remedies, § 22, p. 664.

1955Whitney v. Whitney, 194 Okl. 361 , 151 P.2d 583 .

1955Whitney v. Whitney, 194 Okl. 361 , 151 P.2d 583 .

1936In the case of Electrical Research Products v. Haniotis Bros., 170 Okla. 144 , 39 P. (2d) 36 , we held: “ ‘The essential elements of the doctrine of election of remedies are (a) the existence of the two remedies; (b) the inconsistency between the remedies; (e) the choice of one of the remedies.

1936In the case of Electrical Research Products v. Haniotis Bros., 170 Okla. 144 , 39 P. (2d) 36 , we held: “ ‘The essential elements of the doctrine of election of remedies are (a) the existence of the two remedies; (b) the inconsistency between the remedies; (e) the choice of one of the remedies.

1926In the case of Invader Oil Corp. v. Commerce Trust Co., 111 Okla. 85 , 238 Pac. 441 , it is held in the first paragraph of the syl--iabus that: "Election of remedies id a speêies of es-toppel in pais 10 the operation of which knowledge of all the material facts affecting the yemedy is essential, but in addition to a knowledge of the material facts, there must be in fact and in law two inconsistent remedies, the pursuit of either of which would accomplish the same legal result.

1926In the case of Invader Oil Corp. v. Commerce Trust Co., 111 Okla. 85 , 238 Pac. 441 , it is held in the first paragraph of the syl--iabus that: "Election of remedies id a speêies of es-toppel in pais 10 the operation of which knowledge of all the material facts affecting the yemedy is essential, but in addition to a knowledge of the material facts, there must be in fact and in law two inconsistent remedies, the pursuit of either of which would accomplish the same legal result.