Belas v. Kiga’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently September 2011
1 federal appellate · 15 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 Nordlinger v. Hahn · Williams v. Democratic Party · 127 Wash. 2d 874 - Covell v. City of Seattle · 113 Wash. 2d 929 - Forbes v. City of Seattle · Island County v. State
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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he Legislature possesses a plenary power in matters of taxation except as limited by the Constitution.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Limits that constrain changes in assessed or appraised value of property may appear to provide control, but actually distort the distribution of the property tax, destroying property tax equity and increasing public confusion and administrative complexity. Owners whose properties are increasing in value more rapidly than the permitted rate of increase ... receive a windfall at the expense of those whose properties are decreasing in value or are increasing at lower rates. In effect, valuation increase limits result in lower effective property tax rates for owners of desirable property and higher effective property tax rates for owners of undesirable property. Legislators and the public should be made aware of these inequities and be actively discouraged from pursuing such limitations. Any other control is preferable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Belas v. Kiga“Where one relies on exemption from taxation, both the power to exempt and the intention to exempt must be clear. No presumption or intendment in favor of exemptions will be made unless plainly and unmistakably warranted by the letter and spirit of the law granting the exemption. On the contrary the prevailing doctrine is that any doubt or ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the public. As has frequently been stated, exemptions are not favored, and will not be allowed unless it clearly appears that such was the statutory intent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Belas v. Kiga
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.