Sternberg v. Lechman-Su

How courts have described this case

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

• considering renewed motion for summary judgment after remand from this court
• considering renewed motion for summary judgment after remand from this court
• where plaintiff’s constitutional argument likely implicated complex issues of state and federal constitutional law, her 162 R. S. R. v. Dept. of Human Services “undeveloped argument” on that point did “not present a basis for reversal”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Morris v. Dental Care Today, P. C.
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2020-08-26· cited 8×
• R. S. R. v. Dept. of Human Services
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2022-04-20· cited 6×

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Two Two v. Fujitec America, Inc.
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2014-05-08· cited 85×
• Domingo v. Anderson
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1997-06-12· cited 28×
• Menasha Forest Products Corp. v. Curry County Title, Inc.
  Oregon Supreme Court· 2011-03-25· cited 12×
• State v. Demings
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 1992-11-18· cited 10×
• Thorson v. Bend Mem'l Clinic
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2018-03-28· cited 10×
• State v. Harrison
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2018-03-14· cited 5×
• Fujitsu Microelectronics, Inc. v. Lam Research Corp.
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2001-06-06· cited 5×
• Sternberg v. Lechman-Su
  Court of Appeals of Oregon· 2015-05-28· cited 5×