United States v. Fay Heasley, Fay Heasley and Selma Heasley v. United States of America and Henry W. Anderberg, Receiver, Fay Heasley and Selma Heasley v. United States of America and Henry W. Anderberg, Receiver’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 federal appellate · 8 district · 5 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[T]he rule in federal courts is well settled that the matter of confirming a judicial sale rests in the sound judicial discretion of the trial court and this discretion will not be disturbed on appeal except in cases of its abuse.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Heasley v. United States · United States v. Peckham

2. ““It appears that local taxes on the real estate were not paid for the years 1954 to 1957, inclusive, and pursuant to the law of North Dakota the land was sold, subject to right of redemption and tax certificates were issued and outstanding for said years in the total amount of $16,299.20. Apparently, these tax certificates are held by various members of the Heasley family. After hearing, and upon consideration, the Court found that the lien of the Government was superior to the interest represented by the tax certificates, and ordered that a lien for the tax certificates would extend only to any surplus remaining after payment in full of the Government’s lien. The appellants (one of which was Paul Heas-ley) in No. 16,543 are complaining of this ruling, but we have difficulty in ascertaining from their brief the precise nature of their contention. At any rate, the order with respect to the tax certificates was correct. The Government’s lien for taxes here involved was perfected on February 18, 1954, and prior to the liens for county and state taxes on the real estate. In this situation, it would have been improper for the Court to give preference to such junior liens prior to the satisfaction of the amount due the Government.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Heasley v. State

3. ““As to right of redemption where land is sold at a judicial sale, a sufficient answer is that no such right exists by federal law. Unlike the sale of property under levy and distraint proceeding, where by statute there is a specific provision for redemption of the property, § 6337(b) of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C.A. § 6337 (b), Congress has not seen fit to provide that the right to redeem shall exist where property is sold pursuant to a judicial decree. See § 2001, Title 28, supra * * * ” 283 F.2d at 427 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Montgomery