Lee v. Harrison’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[a]ny person having any claim to real estate or land of any kind, or to any legal or equitable interest therein, the same having been subject to assessment for state and county taxes, who and those through whom such person claims have failed to have the same assessed and to pay any state and county taxes thereon for a period of more than twenty (20) years, shall be forever barred from bringing any action in law or in equity to recover the same, or to recover any rents or profits therefrom in any of the courts of this state.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Tidwell v. Van Deventer · Jack v. Dillehay

2. ““In an action in rem the court acquires jurisdiction of the property by its seizure and all those having an interest in the property are deemed to have constructive notice of its seizure and are considered parties to the suit, [numerous citations] “Whether or not seizure of the property alone, without further notice, authorizes the court to proceed to judgment is a question upon which there is a conflict of authority. See cases collected in a note 50 L.R.A. 597 . * * # “Our tax laws appear to he based on the views of the Supreme Court of the United States just quoted. The notification or monition provided by chapter 115, sec. 2, of the Acts of 1921, is that 'said suit shall be conducted in accordance with the practice in Courts of Chancery in this State. ’ That is, a summons shall issue as to those named as defendants or publication shall be made for them, as the circumstances indicate,. Those interested, however, are not made parties by the service of process or by publication. They are parties before either of these things are done — made such by the seizure of property in tvhich they had an interest. The function of process in cases like the one before us is fundamentally different from that of process essential to jurisdiction in an action in personam.” (emphasis supplied.) See also Lee v. Harrison, 196 Tenn. 603 , 270 S. W. (2d) 173 ; Williams v. Cravens, 28 Tenn. App. 541 , 191 S. W. (2d) 942, 944 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Moore v. City of Chattanooga

3. “In conclusion it should be said that only persons who have a vested interest in lands at the time this statute was enacted are in a position to question its validity on the ground that it is retrospective. Whether or not “trespassers” upon such lands could plead it as a bar to “any suit by such owner to protect his title” is an open question. It is not before us in the instant case.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bone v. Loggins