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 4 courts 1987–2008 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 |
|---|---|---|
Coolidge v. New Hampshiregreen2 sentences1989The three prong test of the "plain view" doctrine, which may be gleaned from the plurality portion of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 464-70 (1971), requires that (a) the officer must be lawfully in a position to view and seize the item, (b) the item must be discovered inadvertently, and (c) it must be immediately apparent to the officer that the item is evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure. 1987The three prong test of the “plain view” doctrine, which may be gleaned from the plurality portion of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 464-70 (1971), requires that (a) the officer must be lawfully in a position to view and seize the item, (b) the item must be discovered inadvertently, and (c) it must be immediately apparent to the officer that the item is evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure. | 2 | 2 |
Stokes v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1991In Stokes v. Commonwealth, 4 Va.App. 207 , 355 S.E.2d 611 (1987), this Court applied the three prong test set forth by the Coolidge plurality. 1991In Stokes v. Commonwealth, 4 Va.App. 207 , 355 S.E.2d 611 (1987), this Court applied the three prong test set forth by the Coolidge plurality. | 1 | 3 |
New River Media Group, Inc. v. Knightongreen2 sentences2008New River Media Group, Inc. v. Knighton, 245 Va. 367, 369 , 429 S.E.2d 25, 26 (1993). 2008New River Media Group, Inc. v. Knighton, 245 Va. 367, 369 , 429 S.E.2d 25, 26 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Blair v. Commonwealthgreen2 sentences1987See Blair v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 483, 489 , 303 S.E.2d 881, 886 (1983) (“[ujnder this doctrine, a police officer [who is lawfully in a place where he has a right to be] . . . may seize evidence of criminal activity in plain view that he comes upon inadvertently when it is immediately apparent that the items *210 are incriminating”). 1987See Blair v. Commonwealth, 225 Va. 483, 489 , 303 S.E.2d 881, 886 (1983) (“[ujnder this doctrine, a police officer [who is lawfully in a place where he has a right to be] . . . may seize evidence of criminal activity in plain view that he comes upon inadvertently when it is immediately apparent that the items *210 are incriminating”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission
green
2 sentences2007In Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333 , 97 S.Ct. 2434 , 53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977), the Supreme Court further clarified representational standing and provided a three prong test based on the holding in Warth . 2007In Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333 , 97 S.Ct. 2434 , 53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977), the Supreme Court further clarified representational standing and provided a three prong test based on the holding in Warth . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Warth v. Seldin
green
1 sentence2007The Court explained that an organization will have representational standing when "(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit." Id. at 343 , 95 S.Ct. 2197 . | 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.