Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1998 SD 36 - Dahn v. Trownsell

Dahn v. Trownsell’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
February 2024
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2024 · most notably Jones v. Flowers (2006), Peterson, Ex Rel. Peterson v. Burns (2001)

2 federal appellate · 38 state decisions

1801998200020102020decided

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 Mathews v. Eldridge · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams · US West Communications, Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission · Aero-Medical, Inc. v. United States

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

  1. “The purpose of statutory construction is to discover the true intention of the law which is to be ascertained primarily from the language expressed in the statute. The intent of a statute is determined from what the legislature said, rather than what the courts think it should have said, and the court must confine itself to the language used. Words and phrases in a statute must be given their plain meaning and effect. When the language in a statute is clear, certain and unambiguous, there is no reason for construction, and the Court’s only function is to declare the meaning of the statute as clearly expressed.”
    18 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The realities of this case are that counties rely upon the cooperation of property owners to provide accurate information so that counties may discharge their taxation duties efficiently and effectively. Furthermore, it is not practical to place the burden upon counties to maintain current addresses on every owner of property within the county. As individual property owners change their residence, it is incumbent upon them to notify counties of their address. It is also not an unduly burdensome task to fill out a change of address form sent with the tax notice and return it to the county.”
    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.