HOLSEY
v.
MARYLAND; CONNOR V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS; CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION ET AL. V. CHEMEHUEVI INDIAN TRIBE; ZERMAN ET AL. V. AVANT GARDE CONDOMINIUM ASSN., INC., ET AL.; AND ZERMAN V. WHITE, CLERK OF THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT, ET AL.; BAKER, INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA BAKER COAL CO. V. UNITED STATES; MAGGETTE V. COOK COUNTY POLICE AND CORRECTIONS MERIT BOARD ET AL.; NABORS V. UNITED STATES; COURT HOUSE PLAZA CO. V. CITY OF PALO ALTO ET AL.; EL SHAHAWY V. ELLIOTT; DENSON V. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; ROBERTS ET AL. V. SIMPSON, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF BEEL, ET AL.; CALIFORNIA EX REL. COOPER, CITY ATTORNEY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA V. MITCHELL BROTHERS' SANTA ANA THEATER ET AL.; SPARROW V. DEVINE, DIRECTOR, U. S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, ET AL.; BURTON V. REED ET AL.; DANO V. SZOMBATHY; COLEMAN ET AL. V. DELAWARE ET AL.; HOLLIDAY V. HAUPTMAN, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY; BISHOP V. DAVIS; HOWELL V. MARYLAND; MCGLORY V. YOKA, IN RE SCHMID, HADDIX V. OHIO LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION; BURTON V. WILSON ET AL.; BURTON V. SMITH
HOLSEY
MARYLAND; CONNOR V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS; CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION ET AL. V. CHEMEHUEVI INDIAN TRIBE; ZERMAN ET AL. V. AVANT GARDE CONDOMINIUM ASSN., INC., ET AL.; AND ZERMAN V. WHITE, CLERK OF THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT, ET AL.; BAKER, INDIVIDUALLY AND DBA BAKER COAL CO. V. UNITED STATES; MAGGETTE V. COOK COUNTY POLICE AND CORRECTIONS MERIT BOARD ET AL.; NABORS V. UNITED STATES; COURT HOUSE PLAZA CO. V. CITY OF PALO ALTO ET AL.; EL SHAHAWY V. ELLIOTT; DENSON V. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; ROBERTS ET AL. V. SIMPSON, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF BEEL, ET AL.; CALIFORNIA EX REL. COOPER, CITY ATTORNEY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA V. MITCHELL BROTHERS' SANTA ANA THEATER ET AL.; SPARROW V. DEVINE, DIRECTOR, U. S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, ET AL.; BURTON V. REED ET AL.; DANO V. SZOMBATHY; COLEMAN ET AL. V. DELAWARE ET AL.; HOLLIDAY V. HAUPTMAN, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY; BISHOP V. DAVIS; HOWELL V. MARYLAND; MCGLORY V. YOKA, IN RE SCHMID, HADDIX V. OHIO LIQUOR CONTROL COMMISSION; BURTON V. WILSON ET AL.; BURTON V. SMITH
474 U.S. 1077
Supreme Court of the United States (1986)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases
Opinion
Full opinion text not available for this case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Wiley, 847 F.2d 480 (8th Cir. 1988)…ng a search warrant must demonstrate that he or she has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched. United States v. Nabors, 761 F. 2d 465, 468 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 851, 106 S.Ct. 148, 88 L.Ed.2d 123 (1985), reh’g denied, 474 U.S. 1077, 106 S.Ct. 840, 88 L.Ed.2d 810 (1986). By establishing a legitimate expectation of privacy, the person establishes his or her standing to challenge the search. The cases of United States v. Nabors, 761 F. 2d 465 (8th Cir.1985) and United States v. P…