State v. Whittenburg’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 239 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 256 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “* * * no attack on valuations fixed by such boards can or will be sustained in the absence of proof of fraud, want of jurisdiction, illegality, or the adoption of an arbitrary and fundamentally erroneous plan or scheme of valuation.”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Polk County v. Tenneco, Inc. · Federal Land Bank of Houston v. State

2. “"If the statute has the effect of depriving the property owner of defenses vouchsafed to him under the due process or other provisions of the state or federal Constitutions, then, of course, to that extent the legislative act is void and ineffectual. For instance, if a town or city should levy and assess and endeavor to collect taxes upon property situated without the corporate limits of the municipality, then clearly the property owner could plead and prove that fact as a defense in a suit brought against him to enforce collection of the taxes, notwithstanding the statute in question precludes such defense. "So, also, would such statute be ineffectual to cut off an injured property owner from showing that a tax is materially out of proportion to the value of the property taxed, or that it was not equal or uniform with the taxes assessed against like property of others, because these defenses are guaranteed to the citizen in article 8, § 1, of the state Constitution, in which it is provided, that `taxation shall be * * * uniform,' and that all property `shall be taxed in proportion to its value.'"”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commissioners Court of Anderson County v. Calhoon · Federal Land Bank of Houston v. State

3. ““It is now well settled that the assessment of property for tax purposes is a quasi-judicial function of boards of equalization and that no attack on valuations fixed by such boards can or will be sustained in the absence of proof of fraud, want of jurisdiction, illegality, or the adoption of an arbitrary and fundamentally- erroneous •plan or scheme of valuation. [Citing authorities.] Moreover, when their official action is attacked it will be presumed that such boards discharged their duties as public- agencies according to law and acted in good faith. [■Citing authorities.] “While it has been held that a grossly excessive valuation may, in law, be sufficient to establish such fraud or illegality- as to render a valuation void [citing authorities], it is held with -equal emphasis that mere errors in judgment or the fact that a trial judge or jury differs with the valuation fixed will not suffice as a basis for avoiding the board’s action. [Citing authorities.] “If a valuation fixed by a board of equalization is attacked on the ground of unlawful or arbitrary discrimination it is not sufficient to show, comparatively, that in other isolated instances, property of equal or greater value than that in suit, was valued at less [citing authorities] * * *, except where the omission was the result of a deliberate and arbitrary plan or scheme to permit certain classes of property to escape their fair share of the tax burden. * * * “When the attack is made because the board followed a”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Warren Independent School District v. Southern Neches Corp. · East Texas Pulp & Paper Co. v. Hooks