Larson v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Ernest W. Hahn, Inc. v. COUNTY ASSESSOR, ETC. (1978), Roosevelt v. Montana Department of Revenue (1999)
53 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 Hames v. City of Polson · Sparks v. McCluskey · Holenstein v. Andrews · 22 Ariz. App. 46 - Hillock v. Bade · Belknap Realty Co. v. Simineo
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.
““The statutes having made ample provision whereby a taxpayer may have any alleged excessive or erroneous assessment or valuation of his properly reviewed by the county and state boards of equalization, this remedy is exclusive except in cases where fraud or the adoption of a fundamentally wrong principle of assessment is shown.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Accepting as facts the absence of a state-wide appraisal plan and the disproportionate appraisal made on Lewis and Clark property, we return to the legal questions presented. The district court concluded that the adoption of the Laird appraisal would require taxpayers to bear a disproportionate share of Montana’s tax burden, in violation of the equal protection requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article II, § 4, 1972 Montana Constitution. The use of the appraisal was also found to violate the due process requirements of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article II, Sections 17 and 29, 1972 Montana Constitution. Finally, the district court found the appraisal violated the provisions of Title 84, Chapter 4, R.C.M. 1947, which require general and uniform appraisal, and assessment and equalization of all taxable property in the state. “A ‘general and uniform method of appraising1 necessarily requires that each appraisal or reappraisal must be a part of a plan which provides that all similar properties will be valued in like manner. The plain meaning of the statutory language admits of no other interpretation. The absence of such a plan, as discussed earlier in this opinion, thus prevents lawful implication of the Laird appraisal.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is hereby made the duty of the state department of revenue to implement the provisions of this act by providing “2. For a general and uniform method of appraising city and town lots. “3. For a general and uniform method of appraising rural and urban improvements. “4. For a general and uniform method of appraising timber-lands.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.