Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 32 NY2D 243 - Botens v. Aronauer

Botens v. Aronauer’s Empirical Analysis

1973

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
5
states following
October 2011
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently October 2011 · most notably Township of Montville v. Block 69, Lot 10 (1977), Oneida Indian Nation v. Madison County (2011)

3 federal appellate · 19 state decisions

15019731980199020002010decided

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 Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Schroeder v. City of New York · North Laramie Land Co. v. Hoffman · Huling v. Kaw Val Ry Imp Co · Ballard v. Hunter

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

  1. “The land stands accountable to the demands of the State, and the owners are charged with the laws affecting it and the manner by which those demands may be enforced. (Huling v. Kaw [Val. Ry.], 130 U.S. 559 , 9 S.Ct. 603 , 32 L.Ed. 1045 ). This accountability of the land and the knowledge the owners must be presumed to have had of the laws affecting it is an answer to the contention of the insufficiency of the service. 32 N.Y.2d at 248 , 344 N.Y.S.2d at 895 , 298 N.E.2d at 74 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “the individuals had no reason to expect that their property interests were being affected. Such is not the situation in the case before us.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “conceded that plaintiffs [owners] had not actually received the notice of redemption * * *”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.