election of remedies doctrine (Idaho) · Go Syfert
← Idaho issues

election of remedies doctrine in Idaho

5 Idaho opinions name it 1 courts 1917–2026 2 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Idaho 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.

Followed or applied (3)

CaseFollowedCited
Largilliere Co., Bankers v. Kunzgreen
· 1925 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026
2 sentences

2026CMM responds that the election-of-remedies doctrine is “an antiquated doctrine of questionable validity in Idaho” and further argues that because it seeks to increase, rather than duplicate, the district court’s award, there is no risk of double recovery. 5 “Election of remedies is the right of a party in an action to choose one of two or more coexisting remedial rights, where such rights arise out of the same facts . . . .” Largilliere Co. v. Kunz, 41 Idaho 767, 772 , 244 P. 404, 405 (1925).

2026CMM responds that the election-of-remedies doctrine is “an antiquated doctrine of questionable validity in Idaho” and further argues that because it seeks to increase, rather than duplicate, the district court’s award, there is no risk of double recovery. 5 “Election of remedies is the right of a party in an action to choose one of two or more coexisting remedial rights, where such rights arise out of the same facts . . . .” Largilliere Co. v. Kunz, 41 Idaho 767, 772 , 244 P. 404, 405 (1925).

22
Hatfield v. Max Rouse & Sons Northwestgreen
idaho · 1980 · cited in 2 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2026–2026
2 sentences

2026We addressed this very question in Hatfield v. Max Rouse & Sons Northwest, when we observed that “partial payment of a judgment is not inconsistent with an appeal.” 100 Idaho 840, 844 , 606 P.2d 944, 948 (1980) (citing Backman v. Douglas, 46 Idaho 671 , 270 P. 618 (1928)).

2026We addressed this very question in Hatfield v. Max Rouse & Sons Northwest, when we observed that “partial payment of a judgment is not inconsistent with an appeal.” 100 Idaho 840, 844 , 606 P.2d 944, 948 (1980) (citing Backman v. Douglas, 46 Idaho 671 , 270 P. 618 (1928)).

22
Radioear Corporation v. Crousegreen
idaho · 1976 · cited in 1 Idaho opinions naming this issue, 2008–2008
2 sentences

2008Radioear Corp. v. Crouse, 97 Idaho 501, 505 , 547 P.2d 546, 550 (1975).

2008Radioear Corp. v. Crouse, 97 Idaho 501, 505 , 547 P.2d 546, 550 (1975).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Idaho. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Debarre v. Tway neutral
· 1928
2 sentences

2026We addressed this very question in Hatfield v. Max Rouse & Sons Northwest, when we observed that “partial payment of a judgment is not inconsistent with an appeal.” 100 Idaho 840, 844 , 606 P.2d 944, 948 (1980) (citing Backman v. Douglas, 46 Idaho 671 , 270 P. 618 (1928)).

2026We addressed this very question in Hatfield v. Max Rouse & Sons Northwest, when we observed that “partial payment of a judgment is not inconsistent with an appeal.” 100 Idaho 840, 844 , 606 P.2d 944, 948 (1980) (citing Backman v. Douglas, 46 Idaho 671 , 270 P. 618 (1928)).

22026–2026
Backman v. Douglas neutral
· 1928
2 sentences

2026We addressed this very question in Hatfield v. Max Rouse & Sons Northwest, when we observed that “partial payment of a judgment is not inconsistent with an appeal.” 100 Idaho 840, 844 , 606 P.2d 944, 948 (1980) (citing Backman v. Douglas, 46 Idaho 671 , 270 P. 618 (1928)).

2026We addressed this very question in Hatfield v. Max Rouse & Sons Northwest, when we observed that “partial payment of a judgment is not inconsistent with an appeal.” 100 Idaho 840, 844 , 606 P.2d 944, 948 (1980) (citing Backman v. Douglas, 46 Idaho 671 , 270 P. 618 (1928)).

22026–2026
Keesee v. Fetzek green
idahoctapp · 1984
2 sentences

1989Our Court of Appeals disposed *344 of the election of remedies doctrine in Keesee v. Fetzek, 106 Idaho 507 , 681 P.2d 600 (1984), rev. den.

1989Our Court of Appeals disposed *344 of the election of remedies doctrine in Keesee v. Fetzek, 106 Idaho 507 , 681 P.2d 600 (1984), rev. den.

11989–1989
Elliott v. Collins neutral
idaho · 1898
2 sentences

1917As was said by this court in an early case, " He must not only think he has them, but must in fact have them.” (Elliott v. Collins, 6 Ida. 266 , 55 Pac. 301 .) The rule there announced was followed by this court in Whitley v. Spokane etc. Ry.

1917As was said by this court in an early case, " He must not only think he has them, but must in fact have them.” (Elliott v. Collins, 6 Ida. 266 , 55 Pac. 301 .) The rule there announced was followed by this court in Whitley v. Spokane etc. Ry.

11917–1917

Statutes the citing opinions construe

ID § Idaho Code § 12-121 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

TX 102 (1913–2025) IL 49 (1920–2025) NY 49 (1904–2026) FL 44 (1907–2024) CA 41 (1923–2025) TN 28 (1934–2025) MO 26 (1942–2025) AR 22 (1958–2021) IN 22 (1916–2010) MN 21 (1933–2019) MI 21 (1908–2026) NC 21 (1957–2025) PA 20 (1978–2024) NM 19 (1943–2021) WI 19 (1902–2021) RI 17 (1962–2026) IA 15 (1906–2015) WA 14 (1938–2025) SC 14 (1987–2021) NE 11 (1906–2025) CT 11 (1947–2024) MD 11 (1959–2024) UT 10 (1979–2026) OK 10 (1926–2020) MS 9 (1908–2012) GA 9 (1942–2017) AZ 9 (1975–2018) KY 9 (1932–2023) NJ 8 (1938–1985) OH 8 (1979–2023) KS 8 (1909–2021) DC 6 (1991–2023) DE 6 (1963–2020) SD 6 (1932–2018) ME 5 (1955–2012) ID 5 (1917–2026) HI 4 (1995–2008) OR 4 (1970–2022) WY 4 (1924–2012) LA 4 (1980–1993) AL 3 (1979–1989) MT 3 (1990–1993) ND 2 (1988–2015)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check