Ross v. Daniel’s Empirical Analysis
1949
Citation profile
28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently June 2009 · most notably State Ex Rel. Udall v. Colonial Penn Insurance (1991), State Ex Rel. Erickson v. McLean (1957)
28 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 State Ex Rel. State Game Commission v. Red River Valley Co. · Kershner v. Sganzini · 49 Cal. App. 120 - Outer Harbor Dock & Wharf Co. v. City of Los Angeles · State v. Hutchins · State v. Vincent
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““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 passagee.g. Werner v. Garcia““The doctrines of laches and estoppel are so related that what has been said with respect to estoppel applies with equal force to the doctrine of laches. The tardiness of public officers in the performance of duties enjoined upon them by statutes cannot be entertained as a defense to an action by the state to enforce a public right or to protect public interests.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A state cannot be estopped by the unauthorized acts or representations of its officers. It may be estopped only by an act of the legislature where the legislature possesses the sole power to bind it in the transaction in which an estoppel is alleged to arise.”
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.