Ritter v. Ross

U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit · Decided 1993-05-07

Cited by 167 later decision(s) in our corpus · see the citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

From the opinion

HARLINGTON WOOD, Jr., Senior Circuit Judge. “For want of a nail the shoe is lost, for want of a shoe the horse is lost, for want of a horse the rider is lost.” George Herbert, in Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations 270 (Emily M. Beck ed., 15th ed. 1980). And for want of $84, a homesite was lost. Specifically, for allegedly failing to pay $84.43 in back taxes, Elmer and Helen Ritter may have permanently lost thirty-eight a…

Read the full opinion (source) ↗


Lexace provides legal information, not legal advice, and no attorney–client relationship is created. Citation figures are counts of later citing opinions in our corpus and may be incomplete; always read and Shepardize the full opinion before relying on it.