Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 211 Ark. 170 - Wilkerson v. Johnston

Wilkerson v. Johnston’s Empirical Analysis

1947

Citation profile

11
cited by 11 later decisions
1
states following
October 1991
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently October 1991

9 state decisions

40194719501960197019801990decided

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 Lumsden v. Erstine · Brinkley v. Halliburton · Cooper v. Lee · Buckner v. Sugg · Schuman v. Walthour

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

  1. ““It is well settled, not only by the decisions of this court, but by the adjudged cases in the courts of other states, as far as we can discover, that, in order to make a valid assessment and sale of land for taxes, the land must be described with certainty upon the assessment rolls and in all subsequent proceedings for the enforcement of payment of the tax. The chief reason for this requirement is that the owner may have information of the charge upon his property. It has some times been said that a description that would be sufficient in a conveyance between individuals would generally be sufficient in assessment for taxation. We do not, however, consider that a safe test. The description in tax proceedings must be such as will fully apprise the owner, without recourse to the superior knowledge peculiar to him as owner, that the particular tract of his land is sought to be charged with a tax lien. It must be such as will notify the public what lands are to be offered for sale in case the tax be not paid. In Cooper v. Lee, 59 Ark. 460 , 27 S. W. 970 , this court said: ‘A description which is intelligible only to persons possessing more than the average intelligence, or the use and understanding of which is confined to the locality in which the land lies, is not sufficient. ’ These statements have been cited with approval in many subsequent cases. ’ ’”
    2 later decisions 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.