Teslovich v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
84 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently February 2015 · most notably Casanta v. Clearfield County Tax Claim Bureau (1981), Kleinberger v. Tax Claim Bureau (1982)
84 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 Hess v. Westerwick · Ross Appeal · 208 Pa. Super. 384 - Chester County Tax Claim Bureau Appeal · Tax Claim Bureau v. Wheatcroft · 37 Pa. Commw. 449 - Teslovich v. Johnson
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Such a holding is] consistent with the tenor of Ross Appeal . . . where the Supreme Court in considering the notice requirements of the Real Estate Tax Sale Law expressed concern that the Tax Claim Bureau in question upon observing that the owner had paid taxes in years subsequent had made no inquiry of the local tax collector and observed that the statute was not meant to punish tax payers for an oversight or error but to protect local government against wilful, persistent, long-standing delinquents.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The instant case amply demonstrates the frustration of legislative purpose which can occur when the notice provisions of Section 602 of the Real Estate Tax Sale Law are construed to permit a single notice to tenants by entire-ties. To interpret Section 602 of the Real Estate Tax Sale Law to permit a single notice to tenants by the entireties is to countenance the taking of a citizen’s property under circumstances such as those presented here. Such a taking is completely unrelated to the protection of local government and amounts to no more than a trap for unwary taxpayers.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““Each” is a non-technical word which Webster’s Dictionary (unabridged 2nd ed. 1976) defines as “every one of two or more considered or treated distinctly from the rest. ’ ’ The statutory requirement of “notice ... to each owner” must thus be construed to mean that every owner will be considered and treated as distinct from the others and, consequently, that tenants by the entireties are entitled to separate and individual notice.”
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.