Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 95 Ariz. 310 - State v. Birmingham

State v. Birmingham’s Empirical Analysis

1964

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
3
states following
April 2014
most recently cited

67 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently April 2014 · most notably Campbell v. Superior Court (1971), Daou v. Harris (1984)

67 state decisions

220196419701980199020002010decided

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 Lichter v. United States · United States Knauff v. Shaughnessy · Schecter v. Killingsworth · Hernandez v. Frohmiller · Southwest Engineering Co. v. Ernst

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

  1. ““We held in Schecter v. Killingsworth, 93 Ariz. 273 , 380 P.2d 136 , that it is not simply a privilege to drive upon the public highways of this state but that it is a right which, of course, cannot be taken without due process of law. We indicated that some courts have determined that there is no requirement for a hearing prior to the administrative order suspending an operator’s license and have justified the delay in the hearing until after administrative action on the basis of compelling public interest which demands immediate action. We believe that there is a compelling public interest in having those showing disrespect and disregard for traffic laws removed immediately from the highways of Arizona and that, therefore, the statute permitting the immediate suspension without a hearing can be constitutionally justified.” 95 Ariz. at page 315 , 390 P.2d at page 106-107 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “"* * * we disagree with petitioner's contention that the statute * * * is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority in that it is too vague. "Our statute clearly sets forth the administrative procedure to be taken as a result of motor vehicle violations. The * * * [criterion] established by the legislature for the suspension of the license is reasonable, definite, certain and involves a minimum of discretion. The giving or the revocation of a license to operate a motor vehicle is within the police power of the state, and with few exceptions the cases from throughout the country show an increasing trend to sustain statutory authority and * * * [give] considerable discretion to the authorities to promote public safety."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. ““Although the petitioner’s driving record was not specifically set forth in the findings of fact, the driving record was before the hearing examiner and the drive improvement committee and is quite sufficient to support the conclusion of law, without application of any point system, that four speeding convictions, one careless driving conviction and one improper passing conviction in a 25 month period shows a disregard for traffic laws and a disregard for the safety of other persons on the highway with such frequency of serious offenses as to support the department’s suspension of petitioner’s driver's license. This court concurs in that conclusion and affirms the final decision of the department.””
    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.