Bennett v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2020
11 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 Chimel v. California · 1 Cal. 3d 80 - People v. Bradley · 71 Cal. 2d 1096 - People v. Edwards · 4 Cal. 3d 699 - Mozzetti v. Superior Court · Sandefur v. State
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In this case, the arrest of each defendant was made as prescribed by statute, in that, the officers observed the commission of misdemeanors in their presence. One, the improper lane change, and two, that of interfering with a police officer. After arrest, it then became necessary for the officers to impound the vehicle in question for two reasons: “(1) The officers were on duty as motorcycle policemen, and having arrested the defendants, needed to transport them to police headquarters. They also called a wrecker to transport the car for impoundment so that it would not imperil traffic or expose the vehicle and its contents to unauthorized persons. “(2) The ownership of the vehicle had been put in question by the conflicting statements of its ownership by both defendants, to the extent that the vehicle might have been the subject of larceny. “These ‘specially attended circumstances’ warranted impounding of the vehicle and the ‘good faith’inventory search incident thereto was justified by the circumstances. The search and seizure of the vehicle was reasonable and not in violation of the defendants’ constitutional rights against unreasonable searches.” [Emphasis original]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Cooks v. State
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.