State v. Lien (2019)
green
· 105 citation events
across 3 courts.
Showing the 10 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2019 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
201920222026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
yellow
State v. Laney (2022)
See Lien/Wilverding, 364 Or at 760 n 2 (“[A]s our precedents reflect, a person’s possessory interest in property is not the touchstone of whether a person has a privacy interest protected by Article I, section 9.”); but see also id. at 783 (Kistler, J., dissenting) (“Ordinarily, a person who gives up all possessory interests in property retains no privacy interest in it.”). 518 State v. Laney that he was vacating and where he would have no further ability to control what hap…
Kistler, J., dissenting
green
Project Veritas v. Michael Schmidt (2023)
See, e.g., Humphers v. First Interstate Bank of Oregon, 696 P.2d 527 , 531–32 (Or. 1985) (en banc) (noting that Oregon has recognized the common law privacy torts of appropriation, offensive publication of private facts, and intrusion upon exclusion); State v. Lien, 441 P.3d 185, 193 (Or. 2019) (“Tortious invasion of privacy is one of the limited number of torts in Oregon in which a plaintiff may be awarded damages consisting solely of mental suffering caused by the violatio…
“Tortious invasion of privacy is one of the limited number of torts in Oregon in which a plaintiff may be awarded damages consisting solely of mental suffering caused by the violation.”
green
State v. Lien (2019)
State v. Lien , 364 Or. 750, 782, 786, 787 , 441 P.3d 185 (2019) (Kistler, J. dissenting).
Kistler, J. dissenting
green
State v. De Witt Simons (2026)
Hinish [v. Meier & Frank Co., 166 Or 482, 506 , 113 P2d 438 (1941)].” Lien/Wilverding, 364 Or at 763 (footnote omitted).
footnote omitted
green
State v. De Witt Simons (2026)
Hinish [v. Meier & Frank Co., 166 Or 482, 506 , 113 P2d 438 (1941)].” Lien/Wilverding, 364 Or at 763 (footnote omitted).
footnote omitted
green
Aaron v. Kelly (2023)
But that concep- tion of privacy is inapposite to that protected by Article I, section 9.” 1 Petitioner has never suggested that his service contract with his garbage company placed restrictions on the company’s disposition of his garbage once collected. 266 Aaron v. Kelly Lien II, 364 Or at 783 (Kistler, J., dissenting) (internal cita- tion omitted).
Kistler, J., dissenting
green
State v. Hall (2023)
Lien/Wilverding, 364 Or at 768 (court was bound by trial court’s finding that the private person had acted “exclusively at the request and direction of the police”).
court was bound by trial court’s finding that the private person had acted “exclusively at the request and direction of the police”
green
State v. Taplin (2021)
See State v. Lien/Wilverding, 364 Or 750, 760 , 441 P3d 185 (2019) (noting “first, that privacy— freedom from government scrutiny—is a fundamental prin- ciple and value protected by Article I, section 9 and, second, that privacy is grounded in particular social contexts”).
noting “first, that privacy— freedom from government scrutiny—is a fundamental prin- ciple and value protected by Article I, section 9 and, second, that privacy is grounded in particular social contexts”
green
State v. Savinskiy (2019)
See, e.g. , State v. Lien , 364 Or. 750 , 441 P.3d 185 (2019) (Article I, section 9, guarantee that "the people" will be "secure *** against unreasonable search" of their "effects" protected defendants from search of garbage bin for evidence of defendant's illegal drug activity).
Article I, section 9, guarantee that "the people" will be "secure *** against unreasonable search" of their "effects" protected defendants from search of garbage bin for evidence of defendant's illegal drug activity
green
Blain v. Cain (2023)
See id. at 780-81 (specifically overruling State v. Howard/Dawson, 342 Or 635, 643 , 157 P3d 1189 (2007)).