Radcliffe v. Scruggs’s Empirical Analysis
1885
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently June 1985 · most notably Fuller v. Wilkinson (1939), Rankin v. Schofield (1905)
3 federal appellate · 34 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.
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Neither the validity nor the construction of this statute has been settled by previous decisions of this court, further than that it does not operate to deprive the former owner of any meritorious defense. And-by ‘meritorious defense’ we mean any act or omission of the revenue officers in violation of the law, and prejudicial to his rights or interests, as well as those jurisdictional and fundamental defects which affect the power to levy the tax, or to sell for its nonpayment. But, while the act cannot have the free course that its framers intended, it is still our dnty to give it such effect as may be consistent with legal and constitutional principles. And this may be best acconrplished by restricting the operation to mere irregularities or informalities on the part of the officers having some duty to' perform in relation to the assessment, levy of taxes, or sale. Our legislation and previous decisions have always disiinguished between this class of defects, which have no tendency to injuriously affect the taxpayer, and substantial defects, such as go to the jurisdiction of the levying court to levy a particular tax, or to the power of the officer to sell for nonpayment, or the omission of any legal duty which is calculated to prejudice the landowner.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Alexander v. Gordon“■‘Ueitber the validity nor the construction of this statute has been settled by previous decisions of this court, further than it does not operate to deprive the former owner of any meritorious defense. And by ‘ meritorious defense ’ we mean any act or omission of the revenue officers in violation of law, and prejudicial to his rights or interests, as well as those jurisdictional and funda mental defects which affect the power to levy the tax, or sell for its non-payment. But while the act cannot have the free course that its framers intended,, it is still our duty to give it such effect as may be consistent with legal and constitutional principles. And this may be best accomplished by restricting its operation to mere irregularities or informalities on the part of officers .having some duty to perform in relation to the assessment and levy of taxes or sale. Our legislation and previous decisions have always distinguished between this class of defects, which have no tendency to injuriously affect the tax-, payer, and substantial defects, such as go to the jurisdiction of the levying court to levy a particular tax, or of the power of the officer to sell l'or non-payment, or the omission oí any legal duty, which is calculated to prejudice the land-owner.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Martin v. Barbour
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.