Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 349 Mo. 1131 - Hobson v. Elmer

Hobson v. Elmer’s Empirical Analysis

1942

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
1
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently August 2018

17 state decisions

6019421950196019701980199020002010decided

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 State Ex Rel. City of St. Louis v. Baumann · Hilton v. Smith · Kohle v. Hobson · Ailey v. Burnett · Donohoe v. Veal

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. ““There is one manner and, in our opinion, only one manner in which these seemingly conflicting provisions may be harmonized. We construe them to mean that the owner of the lands has an absolute power of redemption which cannot he defeated by the purchaser during and up to the end of the two-year period. Thereafter the purchaser has a right to obtain a collector’s deed at any time within the next two years by complying with the various statutory provisions, to-wit: by producing to the collector his . certificate of purchase, paying the subsequently accrued taxes and legal fees and demanding his deed. If, after the end of the two-year period and before the purchaser has complied with these conditions precedent to obtaining his deed, the owner or transferee applies for a redemption and makes the required payments he thereby destroys the power of the purchaser to obtain a deed.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““1. In case any lasting and valuable improvements shall have been made by the purchaser at a sale for taxes, or by any person claiming under him, and the land on which the same shall have been made shall be redeemed as aforesaid, the premises shall not be restored to the person redeeming, until he shall have paid or tendered to the adverse party the value of such improvements; and, if the parties cannot agree on the value thereof the same proceedings shall be had in relation thereto as shall be prescribed in the law existing at the time of such proceedings for the relief of occupying claimants of lands in actions of ejectment. “2. No compensation shall be allowed for improvements made before the expiration of two years from the date of sale for taxes.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““[I]f a certificate holder has actually tendered to the collector his certificates, together with the amounts due thereunder, his right to a deed cannot be defeated simply because the collector has refused or failed to execute and deliver the deed.... ... we ... hold that [the tax sale purchaser] was prevented from receiving his deed by the acts of the collector and that he had done everything in his power to comply with the statutory requirements before the attempted redemption was made.””
    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.