Gregory N. Patterson v. State

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the “right to collect surplus proceeds from a tax sale is a cognizable, vested property right”
• observing that these courts “all agree that this kind of scheme is an unconstitutional taking”
• stating that the property interest taken by the retention of surplus proceeds following a tax-foreclosure sale was a personal property interest that was separate from the real property interest
• vacating certification order and remanding for further analysis addressing potential difficulties that could hamper damages calculations
• “Ordinarily, courts need more information than the pleadings provide to analyze” whether to certify a class
• “the district court did not require Bowles to actually prove, rather than plead, that her class complied with Rule 23”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).