De Shaw v. McKenzie County’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1991
3 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 Kopplin v. Burleigh County
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"McKenzie County is located in western North Dakota, in what is now referred to as the `oil patch'. The agricultural usage of the land in the area is primarily for cattle ranching, generally used as grazing lands. "During the depression and drought years of the `thirties' the county acquired title to thousands of acres through the failure of the owners to pay the real estate taxes levied and due. The procedures created by the North Dakota Legislature required the county to sell the entire estate it had acquired upon the sale of any properties acquired for taxes. Any interests remaining in the county were subject to redemption by the former owner upon compliance with the procedures established. "It appears that the legislature wanted the properties owned in total by the buyer from the county, or totally owned by the former owner upon redemption. "The statutory directions to the county required the county to `execute and deliver to the purchaser a deed conveying all right title and interest, in and to such property.' "Congress authorized the Department of the Interior to acquire parcels of land in the late 1930's for conservation and public use purposes. After extensive negotiations, the county and the federal government agreed upon a price and a procedure which left the county `owning' a 6.25% royalty interest in oil and gas production. The lands were conveyed by the County, by deed to the government, and in addition were the subject of a friendly condemnation action done by t”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"There is no provision in the law for the county to convey anything less than all of its right, title, and interest in and to such tax-title property. There is no authority for the county to reserve any part of its tax title. The statute having declared what title, estate, and interest of the county shall be conveyed to the purchaser of the land forfeited to it for nonpayment of taxes, a deed conveying a lesser title, estate, or interest is void as to any estate or interest attempted to be reserved contrary to the provisions of law. Kopplin v. Burleigh County, 77 N.D. 942 , 47 N.W.2d 137 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“all rights, title and interest in and to such property acquired by the county through the tax proceedings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.