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.
7 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2016 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 sentences2016Dunn recognized that “the Fourth Amendment protects the curtilage of a house and that the extent of the curtilage is determined by factors that bear upon whether an individual reasonably may expect that the area in question should be treated as the home itself.” Dunn, 480 U.S. at 300 (citing Oliver, 466 U.S. at 180 ). 2016The State quotes People v. Pitman, 211 Ill. 2d 502, 516 (2004), where this court stated: “[i]n determining whether a particular area falls within a home’s curtilage, a court asks whether the area harbors the intimate activities commonly associated with the sanctity of a person’s home and the privacies of life.” In Pitman, this court noted: “[t]he extent of the curtilage is determined by factors ‘that bear upon whether an individual reasonably may expect that the area in question should be treated as the home itself.’ ” Pitman, 211 Ill. 2d at 516 (quoting Dunn, 480 U.S. at 300 ). | 3 | 6 |
United States v. James L. Mooring, United States of America v. Cheryl D. Mooringgreen2 sentences2004Ed. 2d 326, 334 , 107 S. Ct. 1134, 1139 (1987); accord Nielson, 187 Ill. 2d at 281 ; United States v. French, 291 F.3d 945, 951 (7th Cir. 2002); United States v. Mooring, 137 F.3d 595, 596 (8th Cir. 1998). 2004The extent of the curtilage is determined by factors "that bear upon whether an individual reasonably may expect that the area in question should be treated as the home itself." United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 300 , 107 S.Ct. 1134, 1139 , 94 L.Ed.2d 326, 334 (1987); accord Nielson, 187 Ill.2d at 281 , 240 Ill.Dec. 650 , 718 N.E.2d 131 ; United States v. French, 291 F.3d 945, 951 (7th Cir.2002); United States v. Mooring, 137 F.3d 595, 596 (8th Cir.1998). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Aaron L. Frenchgreen2 sentences2004Ed. 2d 326, 334 , 107 S. Ct. 1134, 1139 (1987); accord Nielson, 187 Ill. 2d at 281 ; United States v. French, 291 F.3d 945, 951 (7th Cir. 2002); United States v. Mooring, 137 F.3d 595, 596 (8th Cir. 1998). 2004The extent of the curtilage is determined by factors "that bear upon whether an individual reasonably may expect that the area in question should be treated as the home itself." United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 300 , 107 S.Ct. 1134, 1139 , 94 L.Ed.2d 326, 334 (1987); accord Nielson, 187 Ill.2d at 281 , 240 Ill.Dec. 650 , 718 N.E.2d 131 ; United States v. French, 291 F.3d 945, 951 (7th Cir.2002); United States v. Mooring, 137 F.3d 595, 596 (8th Cir.1998). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Nielsongreen2 sentences2004The extent of the curtilage is determined by factors "that bear upon whether an individual reasonably may expect that the area in question should be treated as the home itself." United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 300 , 107 S.Ct. 1134, 1139 , 94 L.Ed.2d 326, 334 (1987); accord Nielson, 187 Ill.2d at 281 , 240 Ill.Dec. 650 , 718 N.E.2d 131 ; United States v. French, 291 F.3d 945, 951 (7th Cir.2002); United States v. Mooring, 137 F.3d 595, 596 (8th Cir.1998). 2004The extent of the curtilage is determined by factors "that bear upon whether an individual reasonably may expect that the area in question should be treated as the home itself." United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 300 , 107 S.Ct. 1134, 1139 , 94 L.Ed.2d 326, 334 (1987); accord Nielson, 187 Ill.2d at 281 , 240 Ill.Dec. 650 , 718 N.E.2d 131 ; United States v. French, 291 F.3d 945, 951 (7th Cir.2002); United States v. Mooring, 137 F.3d 595, 596 (8th Cir.1998). | 2 | 2 |
People v. Pitmangreen2 sentences2016The State quotes People v. Pitman, 211 Ill. 2d 502, 516 (2004), where this court stated: “[i]n determining whether a particular area falls within a home’s curtilage, a court asks whether the area harbors the intimate activities commonly associated with the sanctity of a person’s home and the privacies of life.” In Pitman, this court noted: “[t]he extent of the curtilage is determined by factors ‘that bear upon whether an individual reasonably may expect that the area in question should be treated as the home itself.’ ” Pitman, 211 Ill. 2d at 516 (quoting Dunn, 480 U.S. at 300 ). 2016The State quotes People v. Pitman, 211 Ill. 2d 502, 516 (2004), where this court stated: “[i]n determining whether a particular area falls within a home’s curtilage, a court asks whether the area harbors the intimate activities commonly associated with the sanctity of a person’s home and the privacies of life.” In Pitman, this court noted: “[t]he extent of the curtilage is determined by factors ‘that bear upon whether an individual reasonably may expect that the area in question should be treated as the home itself.’ ” Pitman, 211 Ill. 2d at 516 (quoting Dunn, 480 U.S. at 300 ). | 1 | 3 |
Boyd v. United Statesred1 sentence2016Dunn further recognized that the central component of the curtilage inquiry is “whether the area harbors the ‘intimate activity associated with the “sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life.” ’ ” Dunn, 480 U.S. at 300 (quoting Oliver, 466 U.S. at 180 , quoting Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630 (1886)). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Oliver v. United States
green
2 sentences2016Dunn recognized that “the Fourth Amendment protects the curtilage of a house and that the extent of the curtilage is determined by factors that bear upon whether an individual reasonably may expect that the area in question should be treated as the home itself.” Dunn, 480 U.S. at 300 (citing Oliver, 466 U.S. at 180 ). 2016Dunn further recognized that the central component of the curtilage inquiry is “whether the area harbors the ‘intimate activity associated with the “sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life.” ’ ” Dunn, 480 U.S. at 300 (quoting Oliver, 466 U.S. at 180 , quoting Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 630 (1886)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
People v. Valle
green
2 sentences2015“These factors include: (1) the proximity of the area claimed to be the home’s curtilage; (2) whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home; (3) the nature of the uses to which the area is put; and (4) the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from -8- 2015 IL App (2d) 131319 observation by people passing by.” Id. (citing Dunn, 480 U.S. at 301 ). 2015“These factors include: (1) the proximity of the area claimed to be the home’s curtilage; (2) whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home; (3) the nature of the uses to which the area is put; and (4) the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from -8- 2015 IL App (2d) 131319 observation by people passing by.” Id. (citing Dunn, 480 U.S. at 301 ). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.