Cone v. Usher’s Empirical Analysis
1912
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently November 1938
7 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.
Relationships
Relies on Bowman v. Cockrill · Walker v. Boh · Stump v. Burnett · Hopkinson v. Conley · Coale v. Campbell
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.
““The statute provides that a tax deed — -not a tax deed plus possession —‘shall vest in the grantee an absolute estate in fee simple/ (Gen. Stat. 1909, § 9479.) The plaintiff’s deed is valid on its face. Consequently when it was recorded and when it was introduced in evidence it carried with it, prima, facie, the force and attributes designated in the statute. It is true that a tax deed may lose its virtue through failure to take possession under it. But no presumption arises immediately after the lapse of two years that it has thus become devitalized. The two-year statute of limitations merely conditions the remedy in the event that remedy to enforce possession be necessary. It applies only in the event that the right of possession conferred by the deed be obstructed or denied. It does not begin to run unless and until adverse possession exists, and in the absence of. proof of such possession the fee simple character of the grantee’s ownership presumptively continues.” (p. 884.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Despain v. Despain““Therefore, the holder of a defective tax deed may be regarded as the owner to the extent that, he may keep the land free from subsequent invalid tax titles, provided the right be exercised within the time limit fixed by law.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McAfee v. Vahlberg
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.