Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 81 U.S. 491 - Collins v. Riggs

Collins v. Riggs’s Empirical Analysis

81 U.S. 491 · 1871

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
5
cited 5 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
July 1977
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1977 · most notably Louisville Joint Stock Land Bank v. Radford (1935), Jones v. Van Doren (1889)

9 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

13018711880189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 Willard v. Presbury

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

  1. ““It is clear that the criterion by which the amount tendered was gauged was incorrect. To redeem property which has been sold under a mortgage for less than the mortgage debt, it is not sufficient to tender the amount of the sale. The whole mortgage debt must be tendered or paid into court. The party offering to redeem proceeds upon the hypothesis that, as to him, the mortgage has never been foreclosed and is still in existence. Therefore he can only lift it by paying it. The money will be subject to distribution between the mortgagee and the purchaser, in equitable proportions, so as to reimburse the latter his purchase-money and pay the former the balance of his debt.””
    2 later decisions 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.