Sienkiewicz v. Palzer’s Empirical Analysis
900 F.2d 206 · 1990
Citation profile
5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
February 2009
most recently cited
1 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 19 Wash. App. 300 - Rosholt v. County of Snohomish · 17 Wash. App. 201 - Pierce County v. Evans · Sienkiewicz v. Palzer (In re Sienkiewicz)
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“When the County discovered from the title report that additional record title holders existed, it was required to give them the same notice it extended to the person listed on the county tax rolls. This was not done pursuant to the statute, and jurisdiction for the purposes of the tax foreclosure proceeding was not obtained. The foreclosure sale and the issuance of the tax deed are void.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.