Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 194 Okla. 11 - King v. Slepka

King v. Slepka’s Empirical Analysis

1944

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
3
states following
February 2010
most recently cited

15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently February 2010

15 state decisions

7019441950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Welborn v. Whitney · Chamberlain v. Davis · Swearingen v. McCartan · Price v. Mahoney · Thompson v. Yates

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

  1. ““To defeat the deed it must be clearly plead and clearly proven that one or more of the essential prerequisites to the vesting of authority in said County Treasurer to execute such deed was wholly omitted and not done; and a showing that one or more of said prerequisites was irregularly done shall not be sufficient to defeat the deed.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““that where written or printed notice is involved there must be some substantial similarity to the true name, in the sound as pronounced and as observed by the eye; and that the possibility or probability of mere clerical or typographical errors must be duly taken into account and that we must consider whether the variation is such that the person to be notified thereby, or his acquaintances, upon reading the published notice would be misled by the vari ation, giving due consideration to the contents of the whole notice.” 6”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““It is the plain legislative intent, * * * that substantial compliance with the statutes relating to procedure for the enforced sale of real estate for delinquent taxes is all that is required, and that mere irregularities not affecting the substantial rights of the taxpayer and not in clear violation of the public policy as declared by the Legislature, will not suffice to invalidate the deed. (Citing authorities.)””
    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.