Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Virginia opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2016 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Virginia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Blakely v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2005The United States Supreme Court has recently re-affirmed the fundamental constitutional principle that: “Any fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); see also Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 301 , 124 S.Ct. 2531, 2536 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004); Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 589 , 122 S.Ct. 2 2005The United States Supreme Court has recently re-affirmed the fundamental constitutional principle that: “Any fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); see also Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 301 , 124 S.Ct. 2531, 2536 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004); Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 589 , 122 S.Ct. 2 | 3 | 3 |
Spokeo, Inc. v. Robinsgreen2 sentences2016See Goldman v. Landsidle, 262 Va. 364, 370 , 552 S.E.2d 67, 70 (2001); see also Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. ___ , ___, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016) (noting that federal standing doctrine “confines the federal courts to a properly judicial role”). 2016Owners Ass’n, 273 Va. 107, 120 , 639 S.E.2d 257, 265 (2007) (internal 9 quotation marks and citation omitted). 1 10 The limited role of the judiciary, together with the fundamental constitutional doctrine of 11 separation of powers, counsel that the standing inquiry must be particularly rigorous when a 12 litigant seeks the extraordinary remedy of mandamus, by which courts may compel public 13 officials, and particularly officials in co-equal branches of government, to perform their duties. 14 See Goldman v. Landsidle, 262 Va. 364, 370 , 552 S.E.2d 67, 70 (2001); see also Spokeo, Inc. v. 15 Ro | 2 | 2 |
Westlake Properties v. Westlake Pointe Ass'ngreen2 sentences2016Owners Ass’n, 273 Va. 107, 120 , 639 S.E.2d 257, 265 (2007) (internal 9 quotation marks and citation omitted). 1 10 The limited role of the judiciary, together with the fundamental constitutional doctrine of 11 separation of powers, counsel that the standing inquiry must be particularly rigorous when a 12 litigant seeks the extraordinary remedy of mandamus, by which courts may compel public 13 officials, and particularly officials in co-equal branches of government, to perform their duties. 14 See Goldman v. Landsidle, 262 Va. 364, 370 , 552 S.E.2d 67, 70 (2001); see also Spokeo, Inc. v. 15 Ro 2016Owners Ass’n, 273 Va. 107, 120 , 639 S.E.2d 257, 265 (2007) (internal 9 quotation marks and citation omitted). 1 10 The limited role of the judiciary, together with the fundamental constitutional doctrine of 11 separation of powers, counsel that the standing inquiry must be particularly rigorous when a 12 litigant seeks the extraordinary remedy of mandamus, by which courts may compel public 13 officials, and particularly officials in co-equal branches of government, to perform their duties. 14 See Goldman v. Landsidle, 262 Va. 364, 370 , 552 S.E.2d 67, 70 (2001); see also Spokeo, Inc. v. 15 Ro | 2 | 2 |
Goldman v. Landsidlegreen2 sentences2016Owners Ass’n, 273 Va. 107, 120 , 639 S.E.2d 257, 265 (2007) (internal 9 quotation marks and citation omitted). 1 10 The limited role of the judiciary, together with the fundamental constitutional doctrine of 11 separation of powers, counsel that the standing inquiry must be particularly rigorous when a 12 litigant seeks the extraordinary remedy of mandamus, by which courts may compel public 13 officials, and particularly officials in co-equal branches of government, to perform their duties. 14 See Goldman v. Landsidle, 262 Va. 364, 370 , 552 S.E.2d 67, 70 (2001); see also Spokeo, Inc. v. 15 Ro 2016Owners Ass’n, 273 Va. 107, 120 , 639 S.E.2d 257, 265 (2007) (internal 9 quotation marks and citation omitted). 1 10 The limited role of the judiciary, together with the fundamental constitutional doctrine of 11 separation of powers, counsel that the standing inquiry must be particularly rigorous when a 12 litigant seeks the extraordinary remedy of mandamus, by which courts may compel public 13 officials, and particularly officials in co-equal branches of government, to perform their duties. 14 See Goldman v. Landsidle, 262 Va. 364, 370 , 552 S.E.2d 67, 70 (2001); see also Spokeo, Inc. v. 15 Ro | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Gaudingreen2 sentences2005The United States Supreme Court has recently re-affirmed the fundamental constitutional principle that: “Any fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); see also Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 301 , 124 S.Ct. 2531, 2536 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004); Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 589 , 122 S.Ct. 2 2005The United States Supreme Court has recently re-affirmed the fundamental constitutional principle that: “Any fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); see also Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 301 , 124 S.Ct. 2531, 2536 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004); Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 589 , 122 S.Ct. 2 | 2 | 2 |
Washington v. Com.green2 sentences2008As we noted in Washington v. Commonwealth, 46 Va. App. 276, 291-92 , 616 S.E.2d 774, 782 (2005) (en banc): The United States Supreme Court has recently re-affirmed the fundamental constitutional principle that: “Any fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S. Ct. 738, 756 , 160 L. 2008As we noted in Washington v. Commonwealth, 46 Va. App. 276, 291-92 , 616 S.E.2d 774, 782 (2005) (en banc): The United States Supreme Court has recently re-affirmed the fundamental constitutional principle that: “Any fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S. Ct. 738, 756 , 160 L. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Booker
green
2 sentences2008As we noted in Washington v. Commonwealth, 46 Va. App. 276, 291-92 , 616 S.E.2d 774, 782 (2005) (en banc): The United States Supreme Court has recently re-affirmed the fundamental constitutional principle that: “Any fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S. Ct. 738, 756 , 160 L. 2008As we noted in Washington v. Commonwealth, 46 Va. App. 276, 291-92 , 616 S.E.2d 774, 782 (2005) (en banc): The United States Supreme Court has recently re-affirmed the fundamental constitutional principle that: “Any fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , 125 S. Ct. 738, 756 , 160 L. | 3 | 2005–2008 |
Jones v. United States
green
2 sentences2005The United States Supreme Court has recently re-affirmed the fundamental constitutional principle that: “Any fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); see also Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 301 , 124 S.Ct. 2531, 2536 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004); Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 589 , 122 S.Ct. 2 2005The United States Supreme Court has recently re-affirmed the fundamental constitutional principle that: “Any fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); see also Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 301 , 124 S.Ct. 2531, 2536 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004); Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 589 , 122 S.Ct. 2 | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Apprendi v. New Jersey
green
2 sentences2005The United States Supreme Court has recently re-affirmed the fundamental constitutional principle that: “Any fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); see also Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 301 , 124 S.Ct. 2531, 2536 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004); Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 589 , 122 S.Ct. 2 2005The United States Supreme Court has recently re-affirmed the fundamental constitutional principle that: “Any fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); see also Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 301 , 124 S.Ct. 2531, 2536 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004); Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 589 , 122 S.Ct. 2 | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Ring v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2005The United States Supreme Court has recently re-affirmed the fundamental constitutional principle that: “Any fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); see also Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 301 , 124 S.Ct. 2531, 2536 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004); Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 589 , 122 S.Ct. 2 2005The United States Supreme Court has recently re-affirmed the fundamental constitutional principle that: “Any fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); see also Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 301 , 124 S.Ct. 2531, 2536 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004); Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 589 , 122 S.Ct. 2 | 2 | 2005–2005 |
In Re WINSHIP
green
2 sentences2005The United States Supreme Court has recently re-affirmed the fundamental constitutional principle that: “Any fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); see also Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 301 , 124 S.Ct. 2531, 2536 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004); Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 589 , 122 S.Ct. 2 2005The United States Supreme Court has recently re-affirmed the fundamental constitutional principle that: “Any fact (other than a prior conviction) which is necessary to support a sentence exceeding the maximum authorized by the facts established by a plea of guilty or a jury verdict must be admitted by the defendant or proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 , -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756 , 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005); see also Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 301 , 124 S.Ct. 2531, 2536 , 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004); Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 589 , 122 S.Ct. 2 | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.