Benitez v. Dunevant’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Marmolejo-Campos v. Holder (2009), Derendal v. Griffith (2005)
6 federal appellate · 22 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 Blanton v. City of North Las Vegas · Rothweiler v. Superior Court of Pima County · Bruce v. State · Goldman v. Kautz · Matter of Wines
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This court does not recognize driving as a right. Instead we view it as a privilege. See State v. Harrison, 164 Ariz. 316, 318 , 792 P.2d 779, 781 (App.1990) (“The loss of a privilege is not nearly so serious or burdensome as the loss of a recognized right”). We recognize that license suspension limits the job functions of those who must drive for a living, but we cannot base our analysis of jury eligibility on the effects of a conviction upon a particular occupation or field. Jury eligibility is determinable on the basis of the offense, not the defendant. When faced with consequences to the employment function, the courts must decide whether the effects are sufficiently widespread to create a grave offense with a jury right. Because we do not view the potential loss of the driving privilege as a grave or serious consequence, we hold today that the inability to get to and from work created by the suspension of one’s license does not support a right to trial by jury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Raye v. Jones“[T]he offense [of driving on a suspended license], in one sense, does question [the defendant’s] honesty because he did something he was expressly required by law not to do. But this is true of virtually all criminal offenses.... Moral turpitude is implicated when behavior is morally repugnant to society. It is not implicated when the offense merely involves poor judgment, lack of self-con trol, or disrespect for the law involving less serious crimes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“(1) the relationship of the offense to common law crimes; (2) the severity of the potential penalties made available by statute; and (3) the moral quality of the offense.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Raye v. Jones
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.