6 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by District of Columbia 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brown v. Capitol Hill Clubgreen2 sentences2001Because the plaintiff had not brought these claims before the OHR, she was not precluded by the doctrine of election of remedies, see Brown, supra, note 12, 425 A.2d at 1311-12 , from seeking judicial redress for those claims. 14 . 2001Because the plaintiff had not brought these claims before the OHR, she was not precluded by the doctrine of election of remedies, see Brown, supra, note 12, 425 A.2d at 1311-12 , from seeking judicial redress for those claims. 14 . | 2 | 2 |
Twin City Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Transamerica Insurance Companygreen2 sentences2005Co., 491 F.2d 1122, 1125 (8th Cir. 1974)). 2001“The purpose of the doctrine of election of remedies is not to prevent recourse to any remedy, but to prevent double redress for a single wrong.” Twin City Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Transamerica Insurance Co., 491 F.2d 1122, 1125 (8th Cir.1974), cited in Giorda-no, 586 A.2d at 717 . | 2 | 2 |
Carter v. District of Columbiagreen1 sentence2023No person who maintains, in a court of competent jurisdiction, any action based upon an act which would be an unlawful discriminatory practice under this chapter may file the same complaint with the Office. 7 Thus, by its plain language, the “election of remedies” provision of the DCHRA restricts litigants from proceeding in a judicial forum after filing with OHR unless (1) OHR dismissed the complaint for convenience or (2) the complainant has withdrawn the OHR complaint. “[T]o preserve her right to pursue her claims in court, [a plaintiff is] obliged to withdraw her administrative complaint ‘ | 1 | 1 |
Dean v. Garlandgreen1 sentence2005“The purpose of the doctrine of election of remedies is not to prevent recourse to any remedy, but to prevent double redress for a single wrong.” Dean v. Garland, 779 A.2d 911, 915 (D.C.2001) (quoting Twin City Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Transamerica Ins. | 1 | 1 |
Adams v. Camden Safe Deposit & Trust Co.green2 sentences1991Rule 8, in its departure from the common law, embodies the modern determination to “prevent[ ] formalities of pleadings, or rigid application of legal doctrines, from standing in the way of the equitable resolution of a civil dispute.” Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 70 , 108 S.Ct. 883, 890 , 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988) (White, J., dissenting). 6 This purpose compels adherence to the Supreme Court’s admonition that the “scope of [the doctrine of election of remedies] should not be extended,” Friederichsen, 247 U.S. at 213 , 38 S.Ct. at 452 , or that, as another court has put it, the doctrine s 1991Rule 8, in its departure from the common law, embodies the modern determination to “prevent[ ] formalities of pleadings, or rigid application of legal doctrines, from standing in the way of the equitable resolution of a civil dispute.” Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 70 , 108 S.Ct. 883, 890 , 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988) (White, J., dissenting). 6 This purpose compels adherence to the Supreme Court’s admonition that the “scope of [the doctrine of election of remedies] should not be extended,” Friederichsen, 247 U.S. at 213 , 38 S.Ct. at 452 , or that, as another court has put it, the doctrine s | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Giordano v. Interdonato
green
1 sentence2001“The purpose of the doctrine of election of remedies is not to prevent recourse to any remedy, but to prevent double redress for a single wrong.” Twin City Federal Savings & Loan Ass’n v. Transamerica Insurance Co., 491 F.2d 1122, 1125 (8th Cir.1974), cited in Giorda-no, 586 A.2d at 717 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Hoffman v. Sheahin
green
2 sentences1994The conclusion that a party can sue on a note and subsequently foreclose is further supported by the rationale of Hoffman v. Sheahin, 73 App.D.C. 374 , 121 F.2d 861 (1941). 1994The conclusion that a party can sue on a note and subsequently foreclose is further supported by the rationale of Hoffman v. Sheahin, 73 App.D.C. 374 , 121 F.2d 861 (1941). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Friederichsen v. Renard
green
2 sentences1991Rule 8, in its departure from the common law, embodies the modern determination to “prevent[ ] formalities of pleadings, or rigid application of legal doctrines, from standing in the way of the equitable resolution of a civil dispute.” Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 70 , 108 S.Ct. 883, 890 , 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988) (White, J., dissenting). 6 This purpose compels adherence to the Supreme Court’s admonition that the “scope of [the doctrine of election of remedies] should not be extended,” Friederichsen, 247 U.S. at 213 , 38 S.Ct. at 452 , or that, as another court has put it, the doctrine s 1991Rule 8, in its departure from the common law, embodies the modern determination to “prevent[ ] formalities of pleadings, or rigid application of legal doctrines, from standing in the way of the equitable resolution of a civil dispute.” Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 70 , 108 S.Ct. 883, 890 , 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988) (White, J., dissenting). 6 This purpose compels adherence to the Supreme Court’s admonition that the “scope of [the doctrine of election of remedies] should not be extended,” Friederichsen, 247 U.S. at 213 , 38 S.Ct. at 452 , or that, as another court has put it, the doctrine s | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Mathews v. United States
green
2 sentences1991Rule 8, in its departure from the common law, embodies the modern determination to “prevent[ ] formalities of pleadings, or rigid application of legal doctrines, from standing in the way of the equitable resolution of a civil dispute.” Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 70 , 108 S.Ct. 883, 890 , 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988) (White, J., dissenting). 6 This purpose compels adherence to the Supreme Court’s admonition that the “scope of [the doctrine of election of remedies] should not be extended,” Friederichsen, 247 U.S. at 213 , 38 S.Ct. at 452 , or that, as another court has put it, the doctrine s 1991Rule 8, in its departure from the common law, embodies the modern determination to “prevent[ ] formalities of pleadings, or rigid application of legal doctrines, from standing in the way of the equitable resolution of a civil dispute.” Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58, 70 , 108 S.Ct. 883, 890 , 99 L.Ed.2d 54 (1988) (White, J., dissenting). 6 This purpose compels adherence to the Supreme Court’s admonition that the “scope of [the doctrine of election of remedies] should not be extended,” Friederichsen, 247 U.S. at 213 , 38 S.Ct. at 452 , or that, as another court has put it, the doctrine s | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.