Burns v. Conley’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 12 U.S.C. § 1452 · 28 U.S.C. § 1341 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367
Relies on Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Dusenbery v. United States · Rosewell v. National Bank · Jones v. Flowers · Hibbs Director Arizona Department of Revenue v. Winn et al.
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“do not challenge the power of the town to levy sewer assessments and to conduct tax sales; they would have paid the taxes had they received notice”), with Dist. Lock & Hardware, 808 F.Supp.2d at 41-42 (challenge to adequacy of notice or a tax sale was barred by the Act because it sought”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.