Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2 Va. App. 309 - McCoy v. Commonwealth

2 Va. App. 309 - McCoy v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1986

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
1
states following
May 2016
most recently cited

45 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently May 2016 · most notably 4 Va. App. 53 - Williams v. Commonwealth (1987), 10 Va. App. 87 - Josephs v. Commonwealth (1990)

45 state decisions

1801986199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Rakas v. Illinois · Jones v. United States · Alderman v. United States · Rawlings v. Kentucky · United States v. Salvucci

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “"includ[ing] whether the defendant has a possessory interest in ... the place searched, whether he has the right to exclude others from that place, whether he has exhibited a subjective expectation that it would remain free from governmental invasion, whether he took normal precautions to maintain his privacy and whether he was legitimately on the premises."”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he test is whether the appellant objectively had a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time and place of the disputed search.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “In order to obtain protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, appellant bears the burden of proving that he has standing to assert the constitutional right. . . . “[Defendants charged with crimes of possession may only claim the benefits of the exclusionary rule if their own Fourth Amendment rights have in fact been violated.” “Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights which . . . may not be vicariously asserted.” The test is whether the appellant objectively had a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time and place of the disputed search. In making the analysis the court looks to the “totality-of-the-circumstances.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.