objective reasonableness standard (Virginia) · Go Syfert
← Virginia issues

objective reasonableness standard in Virginia

8 Virginia opinions name it 4 courts 2010–2025 2 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Poindexter v. Commonwealthgreen
vactapp · 1993 · cited in 2 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015Poindexter v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 730, 734 , 432 S.E.2d 527, 529-30 (1993).

2015Poindexter v. Commonwealth, 16 Va. App. 730, 734 , 432 S.E.2d 527, 529-30 (1993).

22
Thomas v. Commonwealthgreen
vactapp · 2010 · cited in 2 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2012–2014
2 sentences

2014An officer’s ulterior motive, whatever it might be, does not nullify an objectively valid legal justification for his actions.” Thomas v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 267, 274 , 701 S.E.2d 87, 91 (2010) (citations and internal quotations marks omitted); see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996) (holding that “[s]ubjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis”). -9- III.

2014An officer’s ulterior motive, whatever it might be, does not nullify an objectively valid legal justification for his actions.” Thomas v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 267, 274 , 701 S.E.2d 87, 91 (2010) (citations and internal quotations marks omitted); see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996) (holding that “[s]ubjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis”). -9- III.

22
United States Ex Rel. Campie v. Gilead Sciences, Inc.green
ca9 · 2017 · cited in 1 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
1 sentence

2025Campie v. Gilead Scis., 862 F.3d 890, 908 (9th Cir. 2017) (requiring an “objectively reasonable, good faith belief” of an FCA violation); Wilkins v. St.

11
Sylvia Singletary v. Howard Universitygreen
cadc · 2019 · cited in 1 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025
1 sentence

2025At least the D.C., Ninth, Eighth, Seventh, Sixth, and Second Circuits, and several federal district courts, have adopted either Grant or a similar objective-reasonableness analysis.7 Additionally, while a plaintiff bringing a direct qui tam 7 See Singletary, 939 F.3d at 296 (applying the Grant test); United States ex rel.

11
Whren v. United Statesgreen
scotus · 1996 · cited in 1 Virginia opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
1 sentence

2014An officer’s ulterior motive, whatever it might be, does not nullify an objectively valid legal justification for his actions.” Thomas v. Commonwealth, 57 Va. App. 267, 274 , 701 S.E.2d 87, 91 (2010) (citations and internal quotations marks omitted); see also Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996) (holding that “[s]ubjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause Fourth Amendment analysis”). -9- III.

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Roe v. Flores-Ortega green
scotus · 2000
1 sentence

2023Whereas the former is the “quintessential example of unreasonable performance under Strickland,” id., the latter is an objectively reasonable risk inherent in the practice of law.

12023–2023
Commonwealth v. Waters green
vactapp · 1995
2 sentences

2013All three requirements must be fulfilled in order to apply the community caretaker doctrine, but the objective reasonableness requirement is the “linchpin of determining the validity of an action.” Waters, 20 Va. App. at 290 , 456 S.E.2d at 529 .

2013All three requirements must be fulfilled in order to apply the community caretaker doctrine, but the objective reasonableness requirement is the “linchpin of determining the validity of an action.” Waters, 20 Va. App. at 290 , 456 S.E.2d at 529 .

12013–2013
Bosworth v. Commonwealth green
vactapp · 1989
2 sentences

2010Id. at 571 , 375 S.E.2d at 758 .

2010Id. at 571 , 375 S.E.2d at 758 .

12010–2010

Where else courts name it

CA 34 (1996–2026) NJ 31 (1988–2026) OH 22 (1990–2026) TX 14 (1992–2024) MD 13 (1998–2022) NY 12 (1992–2025) KS 11 (1997–2024) NM 11 (1995–2025) WA 9 (2000–2026) VA 8 (2010–2025) CO 8 (1990–2012) MI 7 (1993–2026) IA 7 (2008–2022) GA 6 (1993–2026) ID 6 (1991–2025) IN 6 (1975–2020) CT 6 (1992–2010) LA 6 (1994–2016) OR 6 (2005–2024) FL 6 (1997–2018) AZ 5 (2012–2022) TN 5 (1998–2004) IL 5 (2011–2026) SD 5 (1990–2000) UT 5 (2006–2020) MA 5 (1987–2021) NC 4 (1991–2025) OK 4 (2002–2010) WV 4 (1993–2021) ME 4 (2006–2026) NV 3 (2015–2015) DC 3 (1994–2022) WI 2 (2018–2026) MT 2 (1992–2015) VT 2 (2010–2010) PA 2 (1990–2017) RI 2 (2020–2020)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check