Keller v. Haas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““There is no statutory law prohibiting the purchase of an undivided interest in land by a co-owner at tax sale; but if he does purchase, equity holds that the tax deed inures to the benefit of his co-owners, at their option. They may or may not exercise their option by paying their portion of the tax and demanding a reconveyance; and if they fail to do so within a reasonable time, the tax purchaser may rely upon their acquiescence and hold the title as his individual property. “The authorities are uniform that the equitable principle which protects common tenants from loss by tax adjudications to either of them also protects the adjudicatee from belated claims for re-conveyance by his co-owners. They cannot indefinitely neglect their duties to the property and to their co-owner and still claim rights which rest upon those duties. ‘(They) cannot sleep upon this right, await developments, to see whether the property will grow in value or not, and then exercise the rights or not, according to the event.’ Duson v. Roos, 123 La. 835 , 49 So. 590 , 131 Am.St.Rep. 375 ; Joffrion v. Gumbel, 123 La. 391 , 48 So. 1007 ; Cooper v. Edwards, 152 La. 23 , 92 So. 721 ; Yestal [Vestal] v. Producers’ Oil Co., 135 La. 984 , 66 So. 334 . “The tax sale in this case comes within the principles thus laid down. The defendant company has been in possession actually of a large portion of the property and constructively of all of it, for more than 20 years. Large manufacturing enterprises, with the in”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bridges v. Trevino

2. ““In Doiron v. Lock, Moore & Co., 165 La. 57 , 115 So. 366, 369 , the company, which had already had ownership of the principal interest in the property, acquired the undivided interest of one Maggie Cole at tax sale on October 17, 1899. This Court sustained the co-owner’s tax title, even though the property had not passed into the hands of third persons, on the ground that long acquiescence ratified the tax purchase by the co-owner. * * (See original opinion.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bridges v. Trevino