Lumsden v. Erstine’s Empirical Analysis
1943
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 44 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently November 1975 · most notably 109 F. Supp. 456 - United States v. Williams (1952), Plant v. Sanders (1945)
2 federal appellate · 44 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Fuller v. Wilkinson · Cooper v. Freeman Lumber Co. · Goodrum v. Ayers · Hirsch and Schuman v. Dabbs and Mivelaz · Berry v. Davidson
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Some may say that the 5{5 excess in the case at bar is too small to upset a tax sale; but this court has held otherwise. In Cooper v. Freeman Lbr. Co., 61 Ark. 36 , 31 S.W. 981, 983 , 32 S.W. 494 , this court, speaking through Justice Hughes, said: ‘The smallness of the amount of the excess over the amount due does not, in a tax sale, affect the question, as the maxim, ‘de minimis non curat lex’, does not apply to tax sales. The provisions of the law made for the protection and benefit of the taxpayer are mandatory.’ “And in Sec. 233 of Black on Tax Titles cases from many jurisdictions are cited to show that the smallness of the excess cannot make legal the void sale. If the excess is as much as one cent, then the Power to Sell is vitiated. In the case at bar it was stipulated that the excess was five cents. If a citizen’s property can be taken from him by the sovereign for an excess of five cents, then by the same token it can be taken from him for an excess of five million dollars. If a citizen’s rights and property are to be safe, then they must be kept safe against little exactions as well as against large encroachments. The constant drip of water will wear away the largest stone; and if the sovereign by constant inroads in small things is allowed to take the citizen’s property, then the rights of private ownership are gone to the realm of Limbo. Courts are to protect the rights of citizens— that is one of the reasons for the existence of judicial tribunals.” See also, C”
2 later decisions 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.