Taber v. Pledger’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently January 2012
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 Flora v. United States · City of Little Rock v. Cash · Samples v. Grady · Starnes v. Sadler · McCarroll, Commr. of Revs. v. Gregory-Robinson-Speas
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We find the tax is not an illegal tax, thus there is no illegal exaction . . . We cannot agree that the McCarroll case gives chancellors jurisdiction to hold that the procedural requirements of the tax law do not apply when there is no allegation that the basic tax statute is void. The same is true of Harrison v. Norton, 104 Ark. 16 , 148 S.W. 497 (1912), cited as a “see also” case by Taber. There, the chancellor was held to have jurisdiction of an illegal exaction suit where a county road tax was challenged because the results of the election which had resulted in the tax had allegedly been improperly reported. Again, there was a challenge to the validity of the underlying tax law. [Our emphasis.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Taber filed for a refund, following the procedure outlined in subsequent subsections of this statute, and it was denied. He reasserts his divisible tax argument with respect to this section, contending that each of the payments he made was an overpayment because no tax was due. We do not consider this section to apply in this case. It deals with a taxpayer’s overpayment through “error of fact, computation, or mistake of law.” Taber paid under protest rather than through error. We have no doubt that his remedies fell under § 26-18-406, not § 26-18-507.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Any citizen of any county, city or town may institute suit in behalf of himself and all others interested, to protect the inhabitants thereof against the enforcement of any illegal exactions whatever.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Carson v. Weiss
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.