Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 23 COLO 264 - Crisman v. Johnson

Crisman v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

1896

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
4
states following
March 2010
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently March 2010

1 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

701896190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Morris & Thombs v. St. Louis National Bank · Gomer v. Chaffee · De Foresta v. Gast · Waddingham v. Dickson · Cartwright v. McFadden

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

  1. ““This claim is based principally upon the recital in the deed of a sale of a large number of lots, not numbered consecutively. This is undoubtedly some evidence that the lots are not contiguous, but we think it is not sufficient evidence to overcome the presumptions in favor of the validity of the deed, and the regularity of the proceedings, and particularly of the recitals that the lots were exposed to public sale in substantial conformity with the statute in such case made and provided. It is true this latter statement is the statement of a conclusion of law, but tbe deed follows closely the language of tbe statute in this respect, and the statement, having the sanction of legislative authority, should be given weight by the court. ’ ’”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “all questions with reference to tax proceedings, except such as go to the power and jurisdiction of the taxing officers, or the fraud and misconduct of the parties, are [subject to] the statute”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “neither harsh nor unreasonable, but necessary for the protection of purchasers at tax sales, and to secure the collection of the public revenue.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.