Kershner v. Sganzini’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

37 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We have said concerning fraud mentioned in Sec. 24 of Chap. 27, Laws 1934 [Sp.Sess.], where it is provided ‘In all cases where the owner of land sold for taxes shall resist the validity of such tax title, such owner may prove fraud committed by the officer selling the said lands, or in the purchaser, to defeat the same, and, if fraud is established, such title shall be void,’ that this ‘contemplates constructive as well as actual fraud, and (that such acts do) not necessarily imply any actual dishonesty of purpose, nor intent to deceive.’ Scudder v. Hart, 45 N.M. 76 , 110 P.2d 536, 539 , supra. Also, in this case, in touching upon the importance to be attached to the inability or omissions of the tax official to furnish necessary information and their relation to the problem as constructive fraud, we quoted with approval the following language from 61 C.J. 1290, Sec. 1794, where it is stated: “ ‘It is the duty of the proper officers to impart correct information to those seeking to redeem from tax sales, and an owner does not lose his right to redeem by permitting the appointed time to elapse, or paying less than the proper amount, or otherwise failing to comply with the directions of the statute, when this was caused by the fraud of a public officer, or by the latter’s inability to furnish necessary information, or by his mistake, negligence, or miscalculation, or by misleading advice given by him; no act of misconduct by him can prevent the redemption.’ ” [ 45 N.M. 195 , 1”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Case v. Henry

2. ““In Cox v. Shipe, 44 N.M. 378 , 102 P.2d 1115, 1116 , it was probably implied, though not directly held, that redemption of outstanding certificates in the hands of the treasurer is nothing more than ‘paying taxes’. * * * “In Cox v. Shipe, supra, we further pointed out in discussing the statutory requirements for redemption that: ‘It thus results that the holder of a tax sale certificate for any year, issued under authority of the 1934 act, must promptly redeem from all outstanding certificates or else expose his own certificate to redemption by some rival holder of a certificate for another year’s taxes.’ “We were there saying, to employ other words, that such holder must pay all delinquent taxes, which means also that he must redeem all outstanding certificates, at least, such as are still held by the state, before he may receive his deed. Quite clearly we were making no distinction between paying delinquent taxes and redeeming from outstanding tax sale certificates. “While there is much authority to the contrary, we believe that the better reasoned cases support the view which wé now definitely adopt, that, under circumstances ■like those here presented, redemption of tax sale' certificates still held by the state is payment of taxes.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. McGrail v. Fields

3. ““The treasurer was without authority to assign the certificate in question, after Dec. 12, 1938, even assuming alb prior acts with reference to the certificate and touching upon the sale to be-immune from attack. The state became the owner of all unassigned tax: sale certificates after the expiration of two years from Dec. 12, 1936, and. there was enjoined upon the county treasurer of Taos County the duty to-immediately execute deeds to the state. * * * The general rule is that ‘Assignments of tax sale certificates must be made at or within the time prescribed by law.’ 61 C.J. 1323, § 1850.”' The court further said: “Appellees are, therefore, strangers to the title becáuse they hold under a deed executed without authority of law.. It is based upon a tax certificate which the treasurer had no authority to sell! or assign after Dec. 12, 1938, but which, nevertheless, he did attempt to sell and assign thereafter.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Werner v. Garcia