Duson v. Roos’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 51 state decisions

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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““After property has been sold at tax sale, however, the former owners of it cannot be compelled to redeem or reacquire it. Hence it is optional with them to take advantage or not of this doctrine by which a title acquired by any one of the co-owners from ■the purchaser at the tax sale inures to the benefit of the other co-owners. These other co-owners have a right to require their co-owner to make them title in the proportion of their former co-ownership; but this right is not founded upon any codal provision, but on mere equitable considerations, and, such being the case, must be exercised within a reasonable time or it will be lost. These other co-owners cannot sleep upon this right, await developments, to see whether the property will grow in value or not, and then exercise the rights or not, according to the event. He who seeks equity must do equity.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Keller v. Haas · Vestal v. Producers' Oil Co.

2. ““It is plain that a purchaser of real estate in good faith from the owner of record cannot be affected by equities which may have existed between former owners of the property and third persons, but which do not appear of record. Harris v. Natalbany Lumber Co., 119 La. 978 , 44 South. 806 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Vaughn v. Kemp · Vestal v. Producers' Oil Co.

3. ““The doctrine here invoked is the same which has heretofore been enforced by this court in cases where the co-owner had bought directly at the tax sale. Hake v. Lee, 106 La. 482 , 31 South. 54 ; Levy v. Levy, 107 La. 589 , 32 South. 117 ; Bossier v. Herwig, 112 La. 545, 36 . South. 557. And the majority of the court are of the opinion that this doctrine is equally applicable to a case like the present, where the purchase was not directly at the tax sale, but from the purchaser at the tax sale. The writer of this opinion defers to the judgment of his colleagues in the matter, but questions very much whether this doctrine should be enforced under the peculiar circumstances of this case where the purchasing co-owners were not in possession of the property during any part of the time during which the tax should have been paid, and did not at any time occupy any special relation towards it or towards their co-owners such as could give rise to a trust, and did not for any reason owe any greater duty to pay the tax than their co-owners did, where, in other words, the sole and exclusive relation between them and their former co-owners or between them and the common property was the bare and naked fact of the co-ownership.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Jones v. Jones