Kelsch v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““There is given herewith the description of such parcels of real estate, and set opposite each description is the amount which will be required upon the date of. the expiration of the period of redemption to redeem such real estate from such tax sale exclusive of the Gost of serving this notice upon the owner and the person in possession thereof.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Elms v. Olson · May v. Miller

2. “The notice is neither ambiguous nor misleading. It states specifically the amount of the tax for each year that had been delinquent for three years or more. The total amount necessary for redemption could be ascertained by the simple process of addition. The items showing the taxes delinquent for 1936, 1937 and 1938 were mere surplusage, or information that the taxes for those years were delinquent, but could not affect the validity of the notice which was otherwise regular and in compliance with the requirements of the applicable statutes. What we said in Kelsch v. Miller, 73 N. D. 405 , 15 N.W.2d 433, 441 , 155 A.L.R. 1186 , is applicable to the notice of expiration in the instant case: “The notice that was issued gave to the persons to whom it was addressed and to any recipient thereof, all the information that was required by the law to be given concerning each of the certificates in a notice of expiration of the period of redemption. The notice contained full and complete information as to each tax sale certificate. It gave notice that the land had been sold to the county for the delinquent taxes for the years 1934 and 1935 at the tax sales held in subsequent years for the sale of lands for delinquent taxes. It stated the amount required to be paid for the redemption of each tax certificate and the total amount required for both certificates. As said, we are of the view that the notice was sufficient and that the inclusion of the two tax sale certificates — both having ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. May v. Miller

3. ““It is argued by the appellants that ‘there is no authority for the holder of the certificate of sale to include the subsequent taxes paid, * * * and the notice including such amount is a nullity as it does not give the correct amount to redeem.’ This contention is directly contrary to the provisions of section 2197, 1925 Supplement, which provides that if at a tax sale ‘any piece or parcel of land shall be sold to a purchaser, the same may be redeemed at any time within three years from the date of sale by any person or corporation having an interest therein who shall pay into the treasury of the county for the credit of the person thereto entitled, the amount paid by the purchaser at the time of sale, with a penalty of three per cent, and interest thereon at the rate specified in such certificate of sale together with all amounts of subsequent taxes, penalties and interest paid by the holder of such certificate of sale up te> the date of ■ redemption. * * *’ “The amount of subsequent taxes, penalties, and interest paid by the holder of the tax sale certificate is therefore clearly ‘part of the amount required to redeem such lands from sale’ and was properly included in the notice of expiration of redemption.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Elms v. Olson