election of remedies doctrine in Kansas

1986The resolution of the issue presented to this court is governed by the doctrine of election of remedies, as reflected in Griffith v. Stout Remodeling, Inc., 219 Kan. 408, 411-12 , 548 P.2d 1238 (1976): “The doctrine of election of remedies is an application of one phase of the law of estoppel which prevents one who comes into court, asserting or defending his rights, from taking and occupying inconsistent positions (Taylor v. Robertson Petroleum Co., 156 Kan. 822 , Syl. ¶ 4, 137 P.2d 150 [1943], in which the essential elements of the doctrine are stated: [1] The existence of two or more remedi

1986The resolution of the issue presented to this court is governed by the doctrine of election of remedies, as reflected in Griffith v. Stout Remodeling, Inc., 219 Kan. 408, 411-12 , 548 P.2d 1238 (1976): “The doctrine of election of remedies is an application of one phase of the law of estoppel which prevents one who comes into court, asserting or defending his rights, from taking and occupying inconsistent positions (Taylor v. Robertson Petroleum Co., 156 Kan. 822 , Syl. ¶ 4, 137 P.2d 150 [1943], in which the essential elements of the doctrine are stated: [1] The existence of two or more remedi

2021In Griffith, the Kansas Supreme Court explained that the election of remedies doctrine does not require a pretrial election because a party may plead alternative causes of actions and shift the theory of the case as facts develop so long 26 as the other party is informed of the "'the transaction or "aggregate of operative facts" involved in the litigation.'" 219 Kan. at 413 .

1986The resolution of the issue presented to this court is governed by the doctrine of election of remedies, as reflected in Griffith v. Stout Remodeling, Inc., 219 Kan. 408, 411-12 , 548 P.2d 1238 (1976): “The doctrine of election of remedies is an application of one phase of the law of estoppel which prevents one who comes into court, asserting or defending his rights, from taking and occupying inconsistent positions (Taylor v. Robertson Petroleum Co., 156 Kan. 822 , Syl. ¶ 4, 137 P.2d 150 [1943], in which the essential elements of the doctrine are stated: [1] The existence of two or more remedi

1977Appellant has cited several Kansas cases dealing with the doctrine of election of remedies: Ondrasek v. Ondrasek, 172 Kan. 100 , 238 P. 2d 535 ; Taylor v. Robertson Petroleum Co., 156 Kan. 822 , 137 P. 2d 150 ; and Lehigh, Inc. v. Stevens, 205 Kan. 103 , 468 P. 2d 177 .

1977Appellant has cited several Kansas cases dealing with the doctrine of election of remedies: Ondrasek v. Ondrasek, 172 Kan. 100 , 238 P. 2d 535 ; Taylor v. Robertson Petroleum Co., 156 Kan. 822 , 137 P. 2d 150 ; and Lehigh, Inc. v. Stevens, 205 Kan. 103 , 468 P. 2d 177 .

1977Appellant has cited several Kansas cases dealing with the doctrine of election of remedies: Ondrasek v. Ondrasek, 172 Kan. 100 , 238 P. 2d 535 ; Taylor v. Robertson Petroleum Co., 156 Kan. 822 , 137 P. 2d 150 ; and Lehigh, Inc. v. Stevens, 205 Kan. 103 , 468 P. 2d 177 .

1977Appellant has cited several Kansas cases dealing with the doctrine of election of remedies: Ondrasek v. Ondrasek, 172 Kan. 100 , 238 P. 2d 535 ; Taylor v. Robertson Petroleum Co., 156 Kan. 822 , 137 P. 2d 150 ; and Lehigh, Inc. v. Stevens, 205 Kan. 103 , 468 P. 2d 177 .

1958Corp. v. Urschel, 159 Kan. 674 , 157 P. 2d 805 ), holding *179 that under the doctrine of election of remedies, a plaintiff who comes into court with a petition containing causes of action based upon inconsistent theories may be required to elect upon which one of the inconsistent positions so asserted by him he relied on as a basis for the relief he seeks to obtain.

1958Corp. v. Urschel, 159 Kan. 674 , 157 P. 2d 805 ), holding *179 that under the doctrine of election of remedies, a plaintiff who comes into court with a petition containing causes of action based upon inconsistent theories may be required to elect upon which one of the inconsistent positions so asserted by him he relied on as a basis for the relief he seeks to obtain.

1938Thus in Sweet v. Bank, 69 Kan. 641 , 77 Pac. 538 , this court said: “The doctrine of the election of remedies has been frequently applied by this court.

1938Thus in Sweet v. Bank, 69 Kan. 641 , 77 Pac. 538 , this court said: “The doctrine of the election of remedies has been frequently applied by this court.

1909(Tarbox v. Sughrue, 36 Kan. 225 .) The case presents a situation in some respects like that which arose in the recent case of Yeager v. Aikman, ante, p. 656, an original proceeding in quo toarranto to oust the defendant from the office of judge of the ■district court.