5 Virginia opinions name it 3 courts 1980–2017 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Eldon Hangreen2 sentences2017A conviction on adequate and admissible evidence should not be set aside on such a ground.”); Ricks v. Commonwealth, 39 Va. App. 330 , 336 n.3, 573 S.E.2d 266 , 269 n.3 (2002) (applying the principle described in Carroll); DePriest v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 577, 583 , 359 S.E.2d 540, 542-43 (1987) (same); see also United States v. Han, 74 F.3d 537, 539 (4th Cir. 1996) (noting that “federal courts have held uniformly that an appellate tribunal may consider evidence adduced at trial that supports the district judge’s ruling” made at a pretrial suppression hearing). 2 B. 2017A conviction on adequate and admissible evidence should not be set aside on such a ground."); Ricks v. Commonwealth , 39 Va.App. 330 , 336 n.3, 573 S.E.2d 266 , 269 n.3 (2002) (applying the principle described in Carroll ); DePriest v. Commonwealth , 4 Va.App. 577 , 583, 359 S.E.2d 540 , 542-43 (1987) (same); see also United States v. Han , 74 F.3d 537 , 539 (4th Cir. 1996) (noting that "federal courts have held uniformly that an appellate tribunal may consider evidence adduced at trial that supports the district judge's ruling" made at a pretrial suppression hearing). 2 B. | 2 | 2 |
DePriest v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences2017A conviction on adequate and admissible evidence should not be set aside on such a ground."); Ricks v. Commonwealth , 39 Va.App. 330 , 336 n.3, 573 S.E.2d 266 , 269 n.3 (2002) (applying the principle described in Carroll ); DePriest v. Commonwealth , 4 Va.App. 577 , 583, 359 S.E.2d 540 , 542-43 (1987) (same); see also United States v. Han , 74 F.3d 537 , 539 (4th Cir. 1996) (noting that "federal courts have held uniformly that an appellate tribunal may consider evidence adduced at trial that supports the district judge's ruling" made at a pretrial suppression hearing). 2 B. 2017A conviction on adequate and admissible evidence should not be set aside on such a ground."); Ricks v. Commonwealth , 39 Va.App. 330 , 336 n.3, 573 S.E.2d 266 , 269 n.3 (2002) (applying the principle described in Carroll ); DePriest v. Commonwealth , 4 Va.App. 577 , 583, 359 S.E.2d 540 , 542-43 (1987) (same); see also United States v. Han , 74 F.3d 537 , 539 (4th Cir. 1996) (noting that "federal courts have held uniformly that an appellate tribunal may consider evidence adduced at trial that supports the district judge's ruling" made at a pretrial suppression hearing). 2 B. | 1 | 2 |
Stacy v. Commonwealthgreen1 sentence2001The Court of Appeals has construed the definition of prosecution as it is used in the statute: “We hold that ‘prosecution,’ as it is used in Code § 18.2-267, does not include a pretrial suppression hearing to determine the legality of the arrest; ‘prosecution’ as contemplated in this statute is limited to the proceedings devoted to ‘determining the guilt or innocence of a person charged with crime’.” Stacy v. Commonwealth, 22 Va. App. 417, 423 (1996) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 1221 (6th ed. 1990)). | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1996The pretrial suppression hearing was conducted to determine whether Officer Abate had probable cause to arrest the defendant. “[P]robable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge, and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, alone are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed.” Jones v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 229, 231 , 443 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1994) (quoting Taylor v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 816, 820 , 284 S.E.2d 833, 836 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 906 , 102 S.Ct. 1753 , 72 L.Ed 1996The pretrial suppression hearing was conducted to determine whether Officer Abate had probable cause to arrest the defendant. “[P]robable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge, and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, alone are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed.” Jones v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 229, 231 , 443 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1994) (quoting Taylor v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 816, 820 , 284 S.E.2d 833, 836 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 906 , 102 S.Ct. 1753 , 72 L.Ed | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ricks v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences2017A conviction on adequate and admissible evidence should not be set aside on such a ground."); Ricks v. Commonwealth , 39 Va.App. 330 , 336 n.3, 573 S.E.2d 266 , 269 n.3 (2002) (applying the principle described in Carroll ); DePriest v. Commonwealth , 4 Va.App. 577 , 583, 359 S.E.2d 540 , 542-43 (1987) (same); see also United States v. Han , 74 F.3d 537 , 539 (4th Cir. 1996) (noting that "federal courts have held uniformly that an appellate tribunal may consider evidence adduced at trial that supports the district judge's ruling" made at a pretrial suppression hearing). 2 B. 2017A conviction on adequate and admissible evidence should not be set aside on such a ground."); Ricks v. Commonwealth , 39 Va.App. 330 , 336 n.3, 573 S.E.2d 266 , 269 n.3 (2002) (applying the principle described in Carroll ); DePriest v. Commonwealth , 4 Va.App. 577 , 583, 359 S.E.2d 540 , 542-43 (1987) (same); see also United States v. Han , 74 F.3d 537 , 539 (4th Cir. 1996) (noting that "federal courts have held uniformly that an appellate tribunal may consider evidence adduced at trial that supports the district judge's ruling" made at a pretrial suppression hearing). 2 B. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Reimnitz v. Illinois
green
2 sentences1996The pretrial suppression hearing was conducted to determine whether Officer Abate had probable cause to arrest the defendant. “[P]robable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge, and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, alone are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed.” Jones v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 229, 231 , 443 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1994) (quoting Taylor v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 816, 820 , 284 S.E.2d 833, 836 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 906 , 102 S.Ct. 1753 , 72 L.Ed 1996The pretrial suppression hearing was conducted to determine whether Officer Abate had probable cause to arrest the defendant. “[P]robable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge, and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, alone are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed.” Jones v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 229, 231 , 443 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1994) (quoting Taylor v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 816, 820 , 284 S.E.2d 833, 836 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 906 , 102 S.Ct. 1753 , 72 L.Ed | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Wells v. White
green
2 sentences1996The pretrial suppression hearing was conducted to determine whether Officer Abate had probable cause to arrest the defendant. “[P]robable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge, and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, alone are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed.” Jones v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 229, 231 , 443 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1994) (quoting Taylor v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 816, 820 , 284 S.E.2d 833, 836 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 906 , 102 S.Ct. 1753 , 72 L.Ed 1996The pretrial suppression hearing was conducted to determine whether Officer Abate had probable cause to arrest the defendant. “[P]robable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge, and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, alone are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed.” Jones v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 229, 231 , 443 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1994) (quoting Taylor v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 816, 820 , 284 S.E.2d 833, 836 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 906 , 102 S.Ct. 1753 , 72 L.Ed | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Stewart v. Socialist Workers Party
green
2 sentences1996The pretrial suppression hearing was conducted to determine whether Officer Abate had probable cause to arrest the defendant. “[P]robable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge, and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, alone are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed.” Jones v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 229, 231 , 443 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1994) (quoting Taylor v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 816, 820 , 284 S.E.2d 833, 836 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 906 , 102 S.Ct. 1753 , 72 L.Ed 1996The pretrial suppression hearing was conducted to determine whether Officer Abate had probable cause to arrest the defendant. “[P]robable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge, and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, alone are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed.” Jones v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 229, 231 , 443 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1994) (quoting Taylor v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 816, 820 , 284 S.E.2d 833, 836 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 906 , 102 S.Ct. 1753 , 72 L.Ed | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Jones v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1996The pretrial suppression hearing was conducted to determine whether Officer Abate had probable cause to arrest the defendant. “[P]robable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge, and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, alone are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed.” Jones v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 229, 231 , 443 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1994) (quoting Taylor v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 816, 820 , 284 S.E.2d 833, 836 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 906 , 102 S.Ct. 1753 , 72 L.Ed 1996The pretrial suppression hearing was conducted to determine whether Officer Abate had probable cause to arrest the defendant. “[P]robable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge, and of which he has reasonably trustworthy information, alone are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been or is being committed.” Jones v. Commonwealth, 18 Va.App. 229, 231 , 443 S.E.2d 189, 190 (1994) (quoting Taylor v. Commonwealth, 222 Va. 816, 820 , 284 S.E.2d 833, 836 (1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 906 , 102 S.Ct. 1753 , 72 L.Ed | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
1 sentence1980There, Williams entered the room with Reese, read him the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and questioned him about the two passengers in his car. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.