Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 98 A3D 1 - Moore v. Keller

Moore v. Keller’s Empirical Analysis

2014

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
January 2018
most recently cited

3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 157 Pa. Commw. 357 - Darden v. Montgomery County Tax Claim Bureau · Maier v. Henning · 163 Pa. Commw. 58 - York v. Roach · Husak v. Fayette County Tax Claim Bureau · Reilly v. Susquehanna County Tax Claim Bureau

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

  1. “This Court has repeatedly held that where an owner has paid at least 25% of the taxes due, the tax authority is required to inform the owner of the option to enter into an installment agreement and that a failure to do so is a violation of the owner’s due process rights. Reilly v. Susquehanna Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 904 A.2d 49, 53 (Pa.Cmwlth.2006); York v. Roach, 163 Pa.Cmwlth. 58, 61-62 , 639 A.2d 1291 (1994); Darden v. Montgomery Cnty. Tax Claim Bureau, 157 Pa.Cmwlth. 357 , 629 A.2d 321, 323-24 (1993). The record shows that [the taxpayer] had paid $2,394.34 in taxes for 2010 and that her outstanding balance was $287.55.... Thus, at the time the Property was listed for tax sale, [the taxpayer] had paid approximately 88% of the tax owed for 2010.... We conclude that the trial court erred as a matter of law in denying [the taxpayer’s] petition to set aside tax sale when the record showed that the Bureau failed to offer [the taxpayer], who was an equitable owner of the property and had paid well in excess of 25% of the taxes due, the opportunity to enter into an installment agreement.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Any owner or lien creditor of the owner may, at the option of the bureau, prior to the actual sale, (1) cause the property to be removed from the sale by payment in full of taxes which have become absolute and of all charges and interest due on these taxes to the time of payment, or (2) enter into an agreement, in writing, with the bureau to stay the sale of the property upon the payment of twenty-five per centum (25%) of the amount due on all tax claims and tax judgments filed or entered against such property and the interest and costs on the taxes returned to date, as provided by this act, and agreeing therein to pay the balance of said claims and judgments and the interest and costs thereon in not more than three (3) instalments all within one (1) year of the date of said agreement .... So long as said agreement is being fully complied with by the taxpayer, the sale of the property covered by the agreement shall be stayed.”
    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.