9 Kentucky opinions name it 3 courts 1932–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Kentucky 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 |
|---|---|---|
Collings v. Scheengreen2 sentences2010This court clarified that “[ujnder Kentucky law, the doctrine of election of remedies ‘means that when a person has at his disposal two modes of redress, which are contradictory and inconsistent with each other, his deliberate and settled choice and pursuit of one will preclude his later choice and pursuit of the other.’” Id. at 113 (quoting Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589, 591 (Ky.1967)). 2003Under Kentucky law, the doctrine of election of remedies “means that when a person has at his disposal two modes of redress, which are contradictory and inconsistent with each other, his deliberate and settled choice and pursuit of one will preclude his later choice and pursuit of the other.” (Emphasis added.) Collings v. Scheen, Ky., 415 S.W.2d 589, 591 (1967). | 3 | 3 |
Potts v. Stricklandgreen1 sentence2023In Potts v. Strickland, 202 S.W.2d 392, 393 (Ky. 1946), the highest Court in Kentucky explained that [t]he doctrine of election of remedies, which has received almost universal approval, is tersely and clearly stated in Kearney Milling & Elevator Co. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 97 Iowa 719 , 66 N.W. 1059 , 1061, 59 Am. | 1 | 1 |
Riley v. Cumberland & Manchseter Railway Co.green1 sentence2023Co., 29 S.W.2d 3, 4 (Ky. 1930)). | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth Ex Rel. Cowan v. Wilkinsonred1 sentence2009Cowan v. Wilkinson, 828 S.W.2d 610, 614 (Ky.1992). [14] That is the definition of a trespasser. [15] In the later tree cutting case of Grecco, 111 S.W.3d 877 , the Court of Appeals held an owner could not recover both punitive damages and treble damages because of the election of remedies rule. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Kentucky. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kearney Milling & Elevator Co. v. Union Pacific Railway Co.
green
2 sentences2023In Potts v. Strickland, 202 S.W.2d 392, 393 (Ky. 1946), the highest Court in Kentucky explained that [t]he doctrine of election of remedies, which has received almost universal approval, is tersely and clearly stated in Kearney Milling & Elevator Co. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 97 Iowa 719 , 66 N.W. 1059 , 1061, 59 Am. 1946The doctrine of election of remedies, which has received almost- universal approval, is tersely and clearly stated in Kearney Milling & Elevator Co. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 97 Iowa 719 , 66 N. W. 1059 , 1061, 59 Am. | 2 | 1946–2023 |
Wilson v. Lowe's Home Center
green
2 sentences2003Distinguishing the facts therein from the facts in Vaezkoroni v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., Ky., 914 S.W.2d 341 (1995), and Founder , we concluded that the doctrine of election of remedies did not bar the employee from pursuing his circuit court action. 75 S.W.3d at 236-37 . 2003Distinguishing the facts therein from the facts in Vaezkoroni v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., Ky., 914 S.W.2d 341 (1995), and Founder , we concluded that the doctrine of election of remedies did not bar the employee from pursuing his circuit court action. 75 S.W.3d at 236-37 . | 2 | 2003–2004 |
Founder v. Cabinet for Human Resources, Department for Employment Services, Division of Unemployment Insurance
green
2 sentences2004On appeal, the appellees argue that the case of Founder v. Cabinet for Human Resources, Ky.App. 23 S.W.3d 221 (1999), is controlling on this issue. 2004On appeal, the appellees argue that the case of Founder v. Cabinet for Human Resources, Ky.App. 23 S.W.3d 221 (1999), is controlling on this issue. | 2 | 2003–2004 |
Speck v. Bowling
green
2 sentences2003Speck v. Bowling, Ky.App., 892 S.W.2d 309 (1995), is a later case involving the doctrine of election of remedies. 2003Speck v. Bowling, Ky.App., 892 S.W.2d 309 (1995), is a later case involving the doctrine of election of remedies. | 2 | 2001–2003 |
Vaezkoroni v. Domino's Pizza, Inc.
green
2 sentences2003Distinguishing the facts therein from the facts in Vaezkoroni v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., Ky., 914 S.W.2d 341 (1995), and Founder , we concluded that the doctrine of election of remedies did not bar the employee from pursuing his circuit court action. 75 S.W.3d at 236-37 . 2003Distinguishing the facts therein from the facts in Vaezkoroni v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., Ky., 914 S.W.2d 341 (1995), and Founder , we concluded that the doctrine of election of remedies did not bar the employee from pursuing his circuit court action. 75 S.W.3d at 236-37 . | 2 | 1999–2003 |
Brown v. Diversified Decorative Plastics, LLC
green
1 sentence2010This court clarified that “[ujnder Kentucky law, the doctrine of election of remedies ‘means that when a person has at his disposal two modes of redress, which are contradictory and inconsistent with each other, his deliberate and settled choice and pursuit of one will preclude his later choice and pursuit of the other.’” Id. at 113 (quoting Collings v. Scheen, 415 S.W.2d 589, 591 (Ky.1967)). | 1 | 2010–2010 |
King v. Grecco
green
2 sentences2009Cowan v. Wilkinson, 828 S.W.2d 610, 614 (Ky.1992). [14] That is the definition of a trespasser. [15] In the later tree cutting case of Grecco, 111 S.W.3d 877 , the Court of Appeals held an owner could not recover both punitive damages and treble damages because of the election of remedies rule. 2009In the later tree cutting case of Grecco, 111 S.W.3d 877 , the Court of Appeals held an owner could not recover both punitive damages and treble damages because of the election of remedies rule. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Canamore v. Tube Turns Division of Chemetron Corp.
green
2 sentences2003We conclude that their action is not prohibited by the doctrine of election of remedies. [5] *114 We further note that our position is consistent with Canamore, 676 S.W.2d 800 , and Clifton, 702 S.W.2d 835 . 2003We conclude that their action is not prohibited by the doctrine of election of remedies. 5 We further note that our position is consistent with Canamore, 676 S.W.2d 800 , and Clifton, 702 S.W.2d 835 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Clifton v. Midway College
green
2 sentences2003We conclude that their action is not prohibited by the doctrine of election of remedies. [5] *114 We further note that our position is consistent with Canamore, 676 S.W.2d 800 , and Clifton, 702 S.W.2d 835 . 2003We conclude that their action is not prohibited by the doctrine of election of remedies. 5 We further note that our position is consistent with Canamore, 676 S.W.2d 800 , and Clifton, 702 S.W.2d 835 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Grego v. Meijer, Inc.
green
1 sentence2001Id. at 693 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Crider v. Melvin
neutral
2 sentences1932The most recent case cited is that of Crider v. Melvin, 235 Ky. 523 , 31 S. W. (2d) 913 . 1932The most recent case cited is that of Crider v. Melvin, 235 Ky. 523 , 31 S. W. (2d) 913 . | 1 | 1932–1932 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.