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.
7 Missouri opinions name it 2 courts 1951–1991 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Missouri 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 |
|---|---|---|
King v. Guygreen2 sentences1991We reverse and remand. “ ‘The basic concept of the doctrine of election is that a party shall not be permitted to insist at different times upon the truth of two inconsistent and repugnant positions, according to the promptings of his own interest, as to first affirm and later disaffirm a contract, or the like.’ ” King v. Guy, 297 S.W.2d 617, 622 (Mo.App.1956) (quoting Davis v. Hauschild, 243 S.W.2d 956, 959-960 (Mo.1951)). 1971Hilleary and Partners, Ltd. v. Kelly, Mo.App., 448 S.W.2d 926 , cited and relied upon by appellants, the court stated ( 448 S.W.2d 931 [4]) : “Our courts have said that, ‘ * * * “The basic concept of the doctrine of election is that a party shall not be permitted to insist at different times upon the truth of two inconsistent and repugnant positions, according to the promptings of his own interest, as to first affirm and later disaffirm a contract, or the like.” * * ’ Davis v. Hauschild, Mo., 243 S.W.2d 956, 959-960 ; King v. Guy, Mo.App., 297 S.W. 2d 617, 622 ; or, resorting to the vernacular | 1 | 5 |
Davis v. Hauschildgreen2 sentences1991We reverse and remand. “ ‘The basic concept of the doctrine of election is that a party shall not be permitted to insist at different times upon the truth of two inconsistent and repugnant positions, according to the promptings of his own interest, as to first affirm and later disaffirm a contract, or the like.’ ” King v. Guy, 297 S.W.2d 617, 622 (Mo.App.1956) (quoting Davis v. Hauschild, 243 S.W.2d 956, 959-960 (Mo.1951)). 1971Hilleary and Partners, Ltd. v. Kelly, Mo.App., 448 S.W.2d 926 , cited and relied upon by appellants, the court stated ( 448 S.W.2d 931 [4]) : “Our courts have said that, ‘ * * * “The basic concept of the doctrine of election is that a party shall not be permitted to insist at different times upon the truth of two inconsistent and repugnant positions, according to the promptings of his own interest, as to first affirm and later disaffirm a contract, or the like.” * * ’ Davis v. Hauschild, Mo., 243 S.W.2d 956, 959-960 ; King v. Guy, Mo.App., 297 S.W. 2d 617, 622 ; or, resorting to the vernacular | 1 | 5 |
Castle v. Tracygreen1 sentence1991“Based on that doctrine the general rule as stated in a number of cases is that, ‘It is well settled law where a party has the right to pursue one of two inconsistent remedies, and he makes his election, and institutes his suit, that in case the action thus begun is prosecuted to final judgment, or the plaintiff has received anything of value under a claim thus asserted, he cannot thereafter pursue another and inconsistent remedy.’ ” Castle v. Tracy, 463 S.W.2d 777, 781 (Mo.1971) (quoting Johnson-Brinkman Comm’n Co. v. Missouri Pac. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Missouri. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Fidelity National Bank & Trust Co.
green
2 sentences1971Bank & Trust Co., 232 Mo. App. 412 , 109 S.W.2d 47, 49 . 1971Bank & Trust Co., 232 Mo. App. 412 , 109 S.W.2d 47, 49 . | 2 | 1969–1971 |
State Ex Rel. Hilleary and Partners, Ltd. v. Kelly
green
1 sentence1971Hilleary and Partners, Ltd. v. Kelly, Mo.App., 448 S.W.2d 926 , cited and relied upon by appellants, the court stated ( 448 S.W.2d 931 [4]) : “Our courts have said that, ‘ * * * “The basic concept of the doctrine of election is that a party shall not be permitted to insist at different times upon the truth of two inconsistent and repugnant positions, according to the promptings of his own interest, as to first affirm and later disaffirm a contract, or the like.” * * ’ Davis v. Hauschild, Mo., 243 S.W.2d 956, 959-960 ; King v. Guy, Mo.App., 297 S.W. 2d 617, 622 ; or, resorting to the vernacular | 1 | 1971–1971 |
State Ex Rel. City of Mansfield v. Crain
green
1 sentence1969City of Mansfield v. Crain, supra. Our courts have said that, “* * * ‘The basic concept of the doctrine of election is that a party shall not be permitted to insist at different times upon the truth of two inconsistent and repugnant positions, according to the promptings of his own interest, as to first affirm and later disaffirm a contract, or the like.’ * * *» Davis v. Hauschild, Mo., 243 S.W.2d 956, 959-960 ; King v. Guy, Mo.App., 297 S.W.2d 617, 622 ; or, resorting to the vernacular, “* * * As the Scotch law is said to have it, one cannot both approbate and reprobate at one and the same ti | 1 | 1969–1969 |
Myers v. Ross
green
1 sentence1951"The basic concept of the doctrine of election is that a party shall not be permitted to insist at different times upon the truth of two inconsistent and *960 repugnant positions, according to the promptings of his own interest, as to first affirm and later disaffirm a contract, or the like." Myers v. Ross, D.C., 10 F.Supp. 409, 411 ; United States Fidelity & G. | 1 | 1951–1951 |
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.