Conroy v. Aniskoff
United States Supreme Court
507 U.S. 511 (1993)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
Section 525 of the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1940 (the act) provided that the period of time that a person is in military service should not be included in computing that person’s redemption period to recover real property sold or forfeited in relation to a tax obligation. Thomas Conroy (plaintiff) was an officer in the United States Army on duty during the entirety of this dispute. In 1973 Conroy purchased land in Danforth, Maine (the town) (defendant). Conroy paid property taxes on the land for 10 years before failing to pay property taxes in 1984, 1985, and 1986. In 1986 the town sold the property in accordance with state law. Conroy filed a lawsuit in state court against the town, arguing that § 525 of the act tolled his redemption period while he was in military service. The district court held that § 525 only tolled a redemption period if a taxpayer could show that his military service resulted in hardship that prevented him from taking timely legal action to recover a property. Conroy appealed, arguing that nothing in the text or legislative history of the act supported the conclusion that hardship was necessary to invoke § 525. The Maine Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the district court. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stevens, J.)
Concurrence (Scalia, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 798,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.