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.
6 Virginia opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2024 1 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. Dunngreen2 sentences2024“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.” Id. (quoting United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 300 (1987)). 2014Thus, regardless of the context in which the extent of a home’s “curtilage” arises, the shared inquiry is the relevant area’s connection to the residence and its role in the lives of its occupants. 4 See Robinson v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 26, 34 , 639 S.E.2d 217, 221 (2007) (“ ‘[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.’ ” (quoting Dunn, 480 U.S. at 300 , 107 S.Ct. at 1139 )). | 3 | 6 |
Robinson v. Com.green2 sentences2014Thus, regardless of the context in which the extent of a home’s “curtilage” arises, the shared inquiry is the relevant area’s connection to the residence and its role in the lives of its occupants. 4 See Robinson v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 26, 34 , 639 S.E.2d 217, 221 (2007) (“ ‘[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.’ ” (quoting Dunn, 480 U.S. at 300 , 107 S.Ct. at 1139 )). 2014Thus, regardless of the context in which the extent of a home’s “curtilage” arises, the shared inquiry is the relevant area’s connection to the residence and its role in the lives of its occupants. 4 See Robinson v. Commonwealth, 273 Va. 26, 34 , 639 S.E.2d 217, 221 (2007) (“ ‘[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.’ ” (quoting Dunn, 480 U.S. at 300 , 107 S.Ct. at 1139 )). | 2 | 3 |
Wellford v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1998See Dunn, 480 U.S. at 301 n. 4, 107 S.Ct. at 1139 n. 4 (declining the invitation to adopt a “bright-line rule” regarding the extent of the curtilage and stating that a court is required to define the extent of the curtilage by assessing the factors outlined in Dunn). “[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.” Id. at 300 , 107 S.Ct. at 1139 ; see Wellford, 227 Va. at 302 , 315 S.E.2d at 238 . [C]urtilage questions should be resolved with particular reference t 1998See Dunn, 480 U.S. at 301 n. 4, 107 S.Ct. at 1139 n. 4 (declining the invitation to adopt a “bright-line rule” regarding the extent of the curtilage and stating that a court is required to define the extent of the curtilage by assessing the factors outlined in Dunn). “[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.” Id. at 300 , 107 S.Ct. at 1139 ; see Wellford, 227 Va. at 302 , 315 S.E.2d at 238 . [C]urtilage questions should be resolved with particular reference t | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Jefferson v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2024“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.” Id. (quoting United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294, 300 (1987)). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
United States v. Santana
green
1 sentence2024In Jefferson, this Court distinguished the facts of the case that involved an arrest beginning in the private backyard of a home from those in Santana, where “[t]he doorway in question was positioned so that it ‘exposed [the defendant] to public view, speech, hearing and touch as if she had been standing completely outside her house.’” Id. at 18 (second alteration in original) (quoting Santana, 427 U.S. at 42 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Payton v. New York
green
2 sentences2007When government agents conduct a search or seizure within protected areas of a dwelling without a warrant such actions are presumptively unreasonable, Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 , 586-87, 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980), and unlawful unless they are supported by both probable cause and exigent circumstances. 2007When government agents conduct a search or seizure within protected areas of a dwelling without a warrant such actions are presumptively unreasonable, Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 , 586-87, 100 S.Ct. 1371 , 63 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980), and unlawful unless they are supported by both probable cause and exigent circumstances. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.