State v. Kauffman

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that we examine the totality of the circumstances to determine whether the defendant “has abandoned protected possessory or privacy interests”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

10 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Crampton
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2001-08-15· cited 14×
• State v. Kendall
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2001-04-25· cited 12×
• State v. Bernabo
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2008-12-10· cited 9×
• State v. Dickson
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2001-04-25· cited 8×
• State v. Crandall
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2005-02-16· cited 6×
• State v. Montiel-Delvalle
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2020-06-17· cited 5×
• State v. Rynhart
  Court of Appeals of Utah· 2003-11-28· cited 4×
• State v. Laney
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2022-03-23· cited 3×
• State v. Hitt
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2001-10-10· cited 1×
• State v. Mardani
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2025-10-22· cited 1×

Cites

3 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Ball v. Gladden
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1968-07-17· cited 849×
• State v. Morton
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1998-03-05· cited 42×
• State v. Knox
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1999-05-26· cited 22×