Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 186 MICH 278 - McDermott v. Alger

McDermott v. Alger’s Empirical Analysis

1915

Citation profile

4
cited by 4 later decisions
4
states following
April 1947
most recently cited

4 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Potter v. City of New Whatcom · King Iron Bridge Manuf'G Co v. County of Otoe · State ex rel. Frazer v. Holt County Court · State ex rel. Davis v. Board of County Commissioners · Laubach v. O'Meara

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““* * * Relator purchased these orders [warrants] in 1894, and has been ever since demanding payment thereof. Just why he was so patient about the matter was due to the fact, says counsel, that he was each year receiving a small payment thereon from the county treasurer as delinquent taxes were paid, and this led him to believe that his orders would be eventually paid. The trouble with this attempt to excuse Ms laches is the fact that nearly half of the tax was set aside in the Saginaw circuit court in the fall of 1896. . When that decree became final, he then knew that there would be such a deficiency in the fund that Ms orders could not be paid. After being possessed of this knowledge, why he did not bestir himself for 15 years to protect his rights is not easily explained. Counsel says, however, had he brought mandamus proceedings at any time during that period against the county treasurer, the writ would have been denied because the treasurer would have shown that there was no money in the fund. This would probably have been the result had he proceeded against the treasurer (Catheart v. Merritt, Tp., 38 Mich. 243 ), but that does not answer the query why he did not then institute the same proceeding-which he did in July, 1911. No reason is assigned why he could not have instituted this proceeding against the drain commissioner in 1896 as well as when he did. If he had, no question of this kind could have arisen. Instead of doing then what he has now done, he waits 15 years”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.