Muff v. Algermissen’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 1985
4 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 Harvey v. Richard · Doiron v. Lock, Moore & Co. · Cooper v. Edwards · Bossier v. Herwig · Murphy v. Murphy
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * It is now the well settled law of our state that the adjudication to one of several joint owners of property adjudicated at a 'tax sale does not divest the other co-owners of their interest in the property. The tax sale only operates as a payment of the taxes for the joint benefit of all of the co-owners, with the right on the part of the adjudicatee to be reimbursed the amount he paid. * * * However, it has also been held that the right of the co-owners to become reinvested with title upon reimbursing the other co-owners of his share of the taxes is a right that must be exercised within a reasonable time, and if not exercised within such reasonable time, and third parties acquire an interest in the property on the strength of the recorded tax title without any knowledge of the equitable interest of the co-owners to become reinvested in his title, or reimbursing his co-owner for the taxes paid by him, such third person will be protected, and can plead the peremption provided for in Article 10, Section 11, of the Constitution against the attack on ' the tax sale. Cooper v. Edwards, 1922, 152 La. 23 , 92 So. 721 .” See, Keller v. Haas, 202 La. 486 , 12 So.2d 238 , 209 La. 343 , 24 So.2d 610 ; Hake v. Lee, 106 La. 482 , 31 So. 54 ; Jacobs v. Metcalfe, La.App., 185 So.2d 845 ; British American Oil Producing Company v. Grizzaffi, La.App., 135 So.2d 559 ; Muff v. Algermissen, La.App., 198 So.2d 742 ; Welsh v. Lagasse, La.App., 128 So.2d 705 ; Robertson v. Grigsby, La.App., ”
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.