Smart v. Peek’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district · 34 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““And, further, appellant contends that even if the sale was for the proper amount, a deed which misreeites a sale for a smaller amount is void. The deed in the instant case recited a sale for $2,219.87. When a tax deed founded upon a valid sale is defective in form or misreeites the true facts, the sale is not rendered void, but the purchaser may compel the issuance to him of a conveyance in due form. (Morton v. Sloan, 96 Cal.App. 747 [ 275 P. 223 ], and cases there cited.) In Morton v. Sloan, supra, in which a hearing was denied by this court, the District Court of Appeal considered the validity of a tax deed issued under section 3785b of the Political Code, which recited that all taxes levied and assessed prior to 1919 had been paid, instead of reciting that all taxes prior to sale had been paid. Although a corrected deed had been filed in the appellate court under section 956a of the Code of Civil Procedure the court held that the original deed was not void, but sufficient to pass title, and merely irregular. A similar decision was made in Schainman v. All Persons, 96 Cal.App. 753 [ 275 P. 225 , 276 P. 113 ], decided the same day. We regard the rule of said decisions as equally applicable to a deed issued under section 3898 of the Political Code, and to an error in stating the amount bid for the property. The misreeital does not destroy the effect of the deed as prima facie evidence of the other facts recited therein.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Roland v. Southern Title & Trust Co.