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 Virginia opinions name it 3 courts 1994–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Peetegreen2 sentences2009See Peete, 517 N.W.2d at 154 (holding that imposing a nexus requirement “makes the language “while possessing’ in [Wisconsin’s statute] parallel in meaning to “while ... using’ or “while ... threatening to use’ ”). 2009Absent a nexus requirement, such a statute “could ... lead to absurd consequences”—“a person could be found guilty of violating [such a] statute when he is found with drugs at his home and a gun at his fishing camp 100 miles away.” Blanchard, 776 So.2d at 1171 ; see Peete, 517 N.W.2d at 153 (“[I]t would be absurd to apply the penalty enhancement statute to situations in which there is no relationship between the offense and possession of a dangerous weapon, regardless of whether that possession is actual or constructive[,]” such as when a person “fills out and files a fraudulent tax return whi | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Dennis Allen Hendricksgreen1 sentence2007Dennis, 115 F.3d at 530 ; see also Hendricks, 743 F.2d at 655 ; United States v. Dornhofer, 859 F.2d 1195 , 1198 (4th Cir. 1988). | 1 | 1 |
Coolidge v. New Hampshiregreen2 sentences2005See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 467 , 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2038-39 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) (holding that the Fourth Amendment "requir[es] a 'particular description’ of the thing to be seized"). 2005See Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 467 , 91 S.Ct. 2022, 2038-39 , 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971) (holding that the Fourth Amendment "requir[es] a 'particular description’ of the thing to be seized"). | 1 | 1 |
Sisson v. Rubygreen2 sentences1997In order to decide whether an activity has a significant relationship to a traditional maritime activity, the court should “determine the potential impact of a given type of incident by examining its general character.” Sisson v. Ruby, 497 U.S. 358, 363 (1990). 1997We are of opinion that, “given ¿he broad perspective demanded” by the nexus test, Sisson, 497 U.S. at 367 , maintaining a vessel’s equipment and its deck under these circumstances is substantially related to traditional maritime activity. | 1 | 1 |
Garland Wayne Kelly and Allen Eugene Kelly, Sr. v. J. C. Smith and Chicot Land Company, Inc.green1 sentence1997Parenthetically, we note that the Attorney General relies on a four-factor nexus test articulated in Kelly v. Smith, 485 F.2d 520, 525 (5th Cir. 1973). | 1 | 1 |
Tart v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1996See generally Tart, 17 Va.App. 384 , 437 S.E.2d 219 (1993)(addressing the nexus requirement); United States v. Hove, 848 F.2d 137 (9th Cir.1988)(stating that the facts set forth in an affidavit must establish a nexus between the *653 place to be searched and the alleged criminal activity). 1996See generally Tart, 17 Va.App. 384 , 437 S.E.2d 219 (1993)(addressing the nexus requirement); United States v. Hove, 848 F.2d 137 (9th Cir.1988)(stating that the facts set forth in an affidavit must establish a nexus between the *653 place to be searched and the alleged criminal activity). | 1 | 1 |
Short Bros. v. Arlington Countygreen2 sentences1994The substantial nexus requirement is extracted from a four-prong test established by the Supreme Court in Complete Auto, 430 U.S. at 279 , and adopted by this Court in Short Bros., Inc. v. Arlington County, 244 Va. 520, 524 , 423 S.E.2d 172, 175 (1992). 1994The substantial nexus requirement is extracted from a four-prong test established by the Supreme Court in Complete Auto, 430 U.S. at 279 , and adopted by this Court in Short Bros., Inc. v. Arlington County, 244 Va. 520, 524 , 423 S.E.2d 172, 175 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Williams
green
1 sentence2013Id. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Blanchard
green
1 sentence2009Absent a nexus requirement, such a statute “could ... lead to absurd consequences”—“a person could be found guilty of violating [such a] statute when he is found with drugs at his home and a gun at his fishing camp 100 miles away.” Blanchard, 776 So.2d at 1171 ; see Peete, 517 N.W.2d at 153 (“[I]t would be absurd to apply the penalty enhancement statute to situations in which there is no relationship between the offense and possession of a dangerous weapon, regardless of whether that possession is actual or constructive[,]” such as when a person “fills out and files a fraudulent tax return whi | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Commonwealth v. Montaque
green
1 sentence2009“Requiring proof of a nexus between the commission of the offense and the possession of the firearm reduces or eliminates this risk without lessening the statute’s legitimate penal purpose.” Montague, 23 S.W.3d at 632 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
United States v. James John Dornhofer
green
1 sentence2007Dennis, 115 F.3d at 530 ; see also Hendricks, 743 F.2d at 655 ; United States v. Dornhofer, 859 F.2d 1195 , 1198 (4th Cir. 1988). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
United States v. Otha Dennis and James Brown, A/K/A Donald Ray Washington
green
1 sentence2007Dennis, 115 F.3d at 530 ; see also Hendricks, 743 F.2d at 655 ; United States v. Dornhofer, 859 F.2d 1195 , 1198 (4th Cir. 1988). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
United States v. Kimberly Ann Hove
green
2 sentences1996See generally Tart, 17 Va.App. 384 , 437 S.E.2d 219 (1993)(addressing the nexus requirement); United States v. Hove, 848 F.2d 137 (9th Cir.1988)(stating that the facts set forth in an affidavit must establish a nexus between the *653 place to be searched and the alleged criminal activity). 1996See generally Tart, 17 Va.App. 384 , 437 S.E.2d 219 (1993)(addressing the nexus requirement); United States v. Hove, 848 F.2d 137 (9th Cir.1988)(stating that the facts set forth in an affidavit must establish a nexus between the place to be searched and the alleged criminal activity). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady
green
1 sentence1994The substantial nexus requirement is extracted from a four-prong test established by the Supreme Court in Complete Auto, 430 U.S. at 279 , and adopted by this Court in Short Bros., Inc. v. Arlington County, 244 Va. 520, 524 , 423 S.E.2d 172, 175 (1992). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.