City of Orange v. Levingston Shipbuilding Co.’s Empirical Analysis
258 F.2d 240 · 1958
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently March 1986 · most notably City of Houston and Houston Independent School District v. Standard-Triumph Motor Company, Inc. (1965), State v. Federal Land Bank of Houston (1959)
6 federal appellate · 20 state decisions
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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Meredith v. City of Winter Haven · State v. Whittenburg · City of Arlington v. Cannon · Whelan v. State
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Once such a plan is put into effect the litigant may defeat the recovery of taxes only to the extent that they are excessive and he must assume the burden of proving excessiveness. * * * The difficulties to be encountered in making the necessary proof as a basis for relief is the penalty the taxpayer must pay for sitting idly by while taxing authorities put into effect a plan of taxation which deliberately permits certain classes of property to escape taxation.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If there is one thing made plain by the contemporary authoritative decisions of the Texas Courts and especially that of Montgomery County v. Humble, [Tex.Civ. App., 245 S.W.2d 326 ] supra, it is that when taxpayers undertake to establish invalidity either from excessiveness or inequality, it is not enough to take values fixed by the taxing authorities. If comparative values are relevant, either to establish excessiveness, inequality, or as here to show the dollar impact of omissions of property from the tax roll, the actual values must be established in a traditional way. . It is merely an application of the approach consistently laid down that no matter how illegal the assessment, no matter how much it violates the State Constitutional pattern, the only relief of a taxpayer defending delinquent tax suit is to show in dollars that he is worse off. Consequently, Taxpayer failed in meeting the burden imposed by the Texas law”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The thesis of Taxpayer is substantially this: had personal property of an actual value of $35,000,000 note 5, supra, not been omitted, the tax rolls would have been approximately $90,000,000; consequently, for the City to raise the same amount of tax dollars, all taxpayers would have paid 35/90 or 38% less taxes had all personalty been included. So the Master found as to this Taxpayer. “The theory is a good one, but as the Texas 'Courts point out, this is not enough. It must finally be translated into hard dollars out of the complaining taxpayer’s pocket. This cannot be done here for at least two reasons. First, there was inadequate proof of the actual or taxable value of the omitted properties * * *.””
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.