10 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois 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. Dunngreen2 sentences2017See United States v. Whitaker, 820 F.3d 849, 854 (7th Cir. 2016) (recognizing that to distinguish Jardines based upon the differences between the front porch of a single family home and the closed hallway of an apartment building would be to draw an arbitrary line that would apportion fourth amendment protections on grounds that correlate with income, race, and ethnicity); Chase, supra ¶ 15, at 1312 (making a similar statement). ¶ 19 Although courts will generally consider the four factors specified in United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 301 (1987), in determining whether a particular area co 2017See United States v. Whitaker, 820 F.3d 849, 854 (7th Cir. 2016) (recognizing that to distinguish Jardines based upon the differences between the front porch of a single family home and the closed hallway of an apartment building would be to draw an arbitrary line that would apportion fourth amendment protections on grounds that correlate with income, race, and ethnicity); Chase, supra ¶ 15, at 1312 (making a similar statement). ¶ 19 Although courts will generally consider the four factors specified in United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 301 (1987), in determining whether a particular area co | 2 | 3 |
State v. Foncettegreen2 sentences2020See United States v. Legall, 585 F. App’x 4, 5 (4th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (applying the Dunn factors and concluding “the common hallway of the hotel was not within any curtilage of the hotel room”); State v. Foncette, 356 P.3d 328, 331 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015) (“Although in close proximity to a private area, the public access hallway outside the door was not the type of area ‘to which the activity of home life extends’ so as to qualify as curtilage of the hotel room.” (quoting Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 , 182 n.12 (1984))). 2020See United States v. Legall, 585 F. App’x 4, 5 (4th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (applying the Dunn factors and concluding “the common hallway of the hotel was not within any curtilage of the hotel room”); State v. Foncette, 356 P.3d 328, 331 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015) (“Although in close proximity to a private area, the public access hallway outside the door was not the type of area ‘to which the activity of home life extends’ so as to qualify as curtilage of the hotel room.” (quoting Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 , 182 n.12 (1984))). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Thomas Legallgreen2 sentences2020See United States v. Legall, 585 F. App’x 4, 5 (4th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (applying the Dunn factors and concluding “the common hallway of the hotel was not within any curtilage of the hotel room”); State v. Foncette, 356 P.3d 328, 331 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015) (“Although in close proximity to a private area, the public access hallway outside the door was not the type of area ‘to which the activity of home life extends’ so as to qualify as curtilage of the hotel room.” (quoting Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 , 182 n.12 (1984))). 2020See United States v. Legall, 585 F. App’x 4, 5 (4th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (applying the Dunn factors and concluding “the common hallway of the hotel was not within any curtilage of the hotel room”); State v. Foncette, 356 P.3d 328, 331 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015) (“Although in close proximity to a private area, the public access hallway outside the door was not the type of area ‘to which the activity of home life extends’ so as to qualify as curtilage of the hotel room.” (quoting Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 , 182 n.12 (1984))). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Burnsgreen2 sentences2017See Burns, 2016 IL 118973, ¶¶ 34-37 . 2017See Burns, 2016 IL 118973, ¶¶ 34-37 . | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Lonnie Whitakergreen2 sentences2017See United States v. Whitaker, 820 F.3d 849, 854 (7th Cir. 2016) (recognizing that to distinguish Jardines based upon the differences between the front porch of a single family home and the closed hallway of an apartment building would be to draw an arbitrary line that would apportion fourth amendment protections on grounds that correlate with income, race, and ethnicity); Chase, supra ¶ 15, at 1312 (making a similar statement). ¶ 19 Although courts will generally consider the four factors specified in United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 301 (1987), in determining whether a particular area co 2017See United States v. Whitaker, 820 F.3d 849, 854 (7th Cir. 2016) (recognizing that to distinguish Jardines based upon the differences between the front porch of a single family home and the closed hallway of an apartment building would be to draw an arbitrary line that would apportion fourth amendment protections on grounds that correlate with income, race, and ethnicity); Chase, supra ¶ 15, at 1312 (making a similar statement). ¶ 19 Although courts will generally consider the four factors specified in United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 301 (1987), in determining whether a particular area co | 2 | 2 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2020But see State v. Williams, 862 N.W.2d 831, 838 (N.D. 2015) (observing that the Dunn factors are “insufficient” to gauge whether a condominium building hallway is curtilage). ¶ 30 Here, the alcove was in close proximity to Room 130 but also to Room 131. 2020But see State v. Williams, 862 N.W.2d 831, 838 (N.D. 2015) (observing that the Dunn factors are “insufficient” to gauge whether a condominium building hallway is curtilage). ¶ 30 Here, the alcove was in close proximity to Room 130 but also to Room 131. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2020But see State v. Williams, 862 N.W.2d 831, 838 (N.D. 2015) (observing that the Dunn factors are “insufficient” to gauge whether a condominium building hallway is curtilage). ¶ 30 Here, the alcove was in close proximity to Room 130 but also to Room 131. 2020But see State v. Williams, 862 N.W.2d 831, 838 (N.D. 2015) (observing that the Dunn factors are “insufficient” to gauge whether a condominium building hallway is curtilage). ¶ 30 Here, the alcove was in close proximity to Room 130 but also to Room 131. | 2 | 3 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Oliver v. United States
green
2 sentences2020See United States v. Legall, 585 F. App’x 4, 5 (4th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (applying the Dunn factors and concluding “the common hallway of the hotel was not within any curtilage of the hotel room”); State v. Foncette, 356 P.3d 328, 331 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015) (“Although in close proximity to a private area, the public access hallway outside the door was not the type of area ‘to which the activity of home life extends’ so as to qualify as curtilage of the hotel room.” (quoting Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 , 182 n.12 (1984))). 2020See United States v. Legall, 585 F. App’x 4, 5 (4th Cir. 2014) (per curiam) (applying the Dunn factors and concluding “the common hallway of the hotel was not within any curtilage of the hotel room”); State v. Foncette, 356 P.3d 328, 331 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015) (“Although in close proximity to a private area, the public access hallway outside the door was not the type of area ‘to which the activity of home life extends’ so as to qualify as curtilage of the hotel room.” (quoting Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 , 182 n.12 (1984))). | 3 | 2017–2020 |
People v. Pakula
green
2 sentences2004The facts presented here pertaining to curtilage are clearly distinguishable from those presented in People v. Pakula, 89 Ill. 2004The facts presented here pertaining to curtilage are clearly distinguishable from those presented in People v. Pakula, 89 Ill. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
United States v. Powell
green
2 sentences2003The Court stated: “We believe that the Dunn rule rests on a sound rationale that is independent of its theories of res judicata, and that it therefore survives an attack based upon its presently erroneous reliance on such theories.” Powell, 469 U.S. at 64 , 83 L. 2003The Court stated: “We believe that the Dunn rule rests on a sound rationale that is independent of its theories of res judicata, and that it therefore survives an attack based upon its presently erroneous reliance on such theories.” Powell, 469 U.S. at 64 , 83 L. | 2 | 2003–2003 |
People v. Schmidt
green
2 sentences2004In People v. Schmidt, 168 Ill.App.3d 873 , 119 Ill.Dec. 458 , 522 N.E.2d 1317 (1988), the appellate court explained that the result in Pakula would have been the same if the Pakula court had applied the Dunn factors. 2004In People v. Schmidt, 168 Ill.App.3d 873 , 119 Ill.Dec. 458 , 522 N.E.2d 1317 (1988), the appellate court explained that the result in Pakula would have been the same if the Pakula court had applied the Dunn factors. | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Dunn v. Shepherd
green
2 sentences1981App. 3d 825, 826 , 323 N.E.2d 853, 854 .) Although the Dunn factors were apparently synthesized from a large group of authorities, no specific cases were cited. 1981App. 3d 825, 826 , 323 N.E.2d 853, 854 .) Although the Dunn factors were apparently synthesized from a large group of authorities, no specific cases were cited. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.