Benavides v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
1 district · 68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently December 2015 · most notably Leday v. State (1998), Daniels v. State (1980)
1 district · 68 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 Coolidge v. New Hampshire · South Dakota v. Opperman · Sedillo v. United States · Cady v. Dombrowski · Roberts v. Louisiana
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“These included impoundment where the owner or operator requested or consents to it; where the vehicle is stolen or the police reasonably believe it to be stolen; if the vehicle is abandoned, a hazard or so mechanically defective that it creates a hazard; if the driver is arrested for being intoxicated and there is no other person to drive or safeguard the vehicle; when the police are authorized by statute to impound the vehicle; and where the driver is placed under custodial arrest and no other alternatives are available to ensure the protection of the vehicle.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[w]e cannot agree that a . . .seizure of an automobile [before the parking ordinance was violated] is permissible. Furthermore there was no testimony that it was standard procedure to impound a vehicle for this violation . . . . Also while the [defendant] himself may not have been able to attend to the vehicle he may have been able to instruct someone to do it for him.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“These procedures developed in response to three distinct needs: the protection of the owner's property while it remains in police custody; to protect the police against claims or disputes over lost or stolen property; and the protection of the police from potential danger.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Murdoch 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.