388 So. 2d 525 - Purcell v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 state decisions

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

1. “'If she mailed the [statement of lawful charges] on said latter date [within the ten-day period], and it was delayed in transmission through the mails to April 24th [seven days after the expiration of the ten-day period], the burden of compliance resting on her, the delay must affect her right, rather than that of him who made the demand under the statute. The written demand was delivered to her in person. To insure a due reply, under the statute, she should have shown due diligence toward statutory compliance.' 200 Ala. at 600 , 76 So. at 958 . Although this statement is dictum and speaks to the converse duty of the purchaser to timely respond, *Page 414 the rationale is persuasive for our holding. . . .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 922 So. 2d 926 - Skelton v. J&G, LLC · 675 So. 2d 411 - Watts v. Rudulph Real Estate, Inc.

2. ““In Foerster v. Swift, supra', the re-demptioner filed her complaint for redemption one day before the expiration of the redemptive period. There was no tender. She made the written demand upon the purchaser one day prior to filing the complaint. In reversing the trial court for failure to dismiss the complaint, this court said: “ ‘It thus appears complainant places some reliance upon section [6-5-234] of the Code ..., in that she avers written demand was made upon respondent for a statement in writing of the debt and lawful charges claimed, but this demand was made just one day previous to the filing of the bill, while the above-cited statute gave respondent a period of ten days within which to com-' ply therewith. True, complainant was forced to file the bill at that time to come within the statutory period of two years [now one year], but the above-noted section was adopted primarily for the benefit of the redemp-tioner, and, if he delays to make the demand as therein authorized for a statement until too late for the purchaser or his vendee to have the benefit of the ten-day period allowed by the statute for a compliance, then he can claim no benefit thereunder. Any hardship resulting from a loss of the privileges therein bestowed is the result of his own lack of diligence.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 411 So. 2d 786 - First Colbert National Bank v. Security Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

3. “"Anyone desiring and entitled to redeem may make written demand of the purchaser or his vendee for a statement in writing of the debt and all lawful charges claimed by him, and such purchaser or vendee shall, within 10 days after such written demand, furnish such person making the demand with a written itemized statement of the debt and all lawful charges claimed by him; and failing so to do, he shall forfeit all claims or right to compensation for improvements, and the party so entitled to redeem may, on the expiration of the 10 days, file his complaint without a tender to enforce his rights under this article."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 435 So. 2d 30 - Garvich v. Associates Financial Services Co.