Conroy v. Aniskoff

RESPONDENT:Aniskoff et al.
LOCATION:North Carolina General Assembly

DOCKET NO.: 91-1353
DECIDED BY: Rehnquist Court (1991-1993)
LOWER COURT: Maine Supreme Judicial Court

CITATION: 507 US 511 (1993)
ARGUED: Jan 11, 1993
DECIDED: Mar 31, 1993

John F. Manning – on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae supporting the Petitioner
Kevin M. Cuddy – on behalf of the Respondents
Robert H. Klonoff – on behalf of the Petitioner

Facts of the case


Media for Conroy v. Aniskoff

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument – January 11, 1993 in Conroy v. Aniskoff

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement – March 31, 1993 in Conroy v. Aniskoff

William H. Rehnquist:

The opinion of the Court in No. 91-1353, Conroy against Aniskoff will be announced by Justice Stevens.

John Paul Stevens:

This case comes to us from the Supreme Court of Maine, it involves the question of construing the Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act, and the question is whether a service man who fail to pay his taxes and has his property sold foreclosure was entitled to benefit of the Act which would enable him to postponed the period of redemption throughout his period of service.

The Maine Supreme Court in a divided opinion held that he was not entitled to the benefit of the statute because he could not prove that the service had caused him any prejudice with regard to his ability to pay his taxes, and felt that a literal reading on the statute which provide for the tolling of the redemption period was absurd and illogical.

We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict and we reverse the judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine and hold that the statute basically means what it says.

We reject the argument that the petitioner advances largely on the basis of legislative history and fairness and apply a literal construction of the Act.

Justice Scalia has filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.