Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 23 Okla. 381 - Kramer v. Smith

Kramer v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

1909

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
September 1939
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently September 1939

17 state decisions

801909191019201930decided

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 Wade v. Crouch and Edwards · Lowenstein v. Sexton · Hanenkratt v. Hamil

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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Counsel for plaintiff in error contends for a liberal construction of this statute relating to tax deeds; insisting that such. a construction is required by section 5667 of the Statutes of 1893. Upon this proposition Justice Gillette says: ‘The liberal construction with regard to tax proceedings required by section 5667 of the statute does not go to the extent of authorizing or directing the court to read [sic] a necessary provision which has been omitted therefrom by the official executing it, because such fact may be or has been proven to exist,, and by so doing "declare a deed to be valid which does not conform to the requirements of the statute. A liberal construction would, we think, require the court to declare an instrument valid where words are used declaring facts to exist which' are equivalents to the statutory requirements.’ And further, on the same subject, Justice Gillette says: ‘A strict compliance with the law alone divests the citizen of his property for public use, and where, as in this case, the statute prescribes the substantial form of an instrument by which property shall be conveyed, it cannot be conveyed by an instrument which does not recite the existence of the facts required. Nor can we go behind the deed to prove the existence of facts which should have been set forth in it.’ We think the foregoing cases fully cover the points raised by counsel for plaintiff in error. To our mind they state the law correctly and are therefore controlling in the cas”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.