green
Positive treatment
10.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
State v. Gelman
(2×)
But see State v. Hrycak, 184 N.J. 351, 362-63 , 877 A.2d 1209 (2005) (holding that " ‘in the case of repeat DWI convictions based on uncounseled prior convictions, the actual period of incarceration imposed may not exceed that for any counseled DWI convictions’ " and that "defendant has the burden of proving ... that he or she did not receive notice of the right to counsel in the prior case” (quoting State v. Laurick, 120 N.J. 1, 16 , 575 A.2d 1340 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967 , 111 S.Ct. 429 , 112 L.Ed.2d 413 (1990))).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Thomas Zingis
Additionally, pursuant to State v. Laurick, 120 N.J. 1, 16 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 111 , S.Ct. 429, 112 L.Ed.2d 413 (1990), where a prior conviction involves a guilty plea in which the defendant was not represented by counsel, that conviction does not constitute a prior offense for purposes of increasing defendant’s custodial sentence, but is counted as a prior offense for purposes of imposing administrative penalties on the defendant.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Thomas Zingis
Additionally, pursuant to State v. Laurick, 120 N.J. 1, 16 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 111 , S.Ct. 429, 112 L.Ed.2d 413 (1990), where a prior conviction involves a guilty plea in which the defendant was not represented by counsel, that conviction does not constitute a prior offense for purposes of increasing defendant’s custodial sentence, but is counted as a prior offense for purposes of imposing administrative penalties on the defendant.
discussed
Cited "see"
STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. JOSEPH MESZAROS, III(27-15, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
See State v. Laurick, 120 N.J. 1, 16 (holding that "enhanced administrative penalties and fines may constitutionally be imposed but that in the case of repeat DWI convictions based on uncounseled prior convictions, the actual period of incarceration imposed may not exceed that for any counseled DWI convictions."), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 967 , 111 S. Ct. 429 , 112 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Edwards
See State v. Weinberg , 215 Conn. 231 , 255, 575 A.2d 1003 ("he engaged in verbal and nonverbal conduct, such as changing both his personal appearance and his car's appearance and offering unsolicited details to the police, that can fairly be inferred to have been influenced by the criminal act"), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967 , 111 S.Ct. 430 , 112 L.Ed.2d 413 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Baba, No. Cr 01 197963 (Oct. 4, 2002)
See State v. Weinberg , 215 Conn. 231 , 241 , 575 A.2d 1003 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967 , 111 S.Ct. 430 , 112 L.Ed.2d 413 (1990) (concluding that "even had the challenged omissions been included in the affidavits, the facts contained therein would have been sufficient to support a finding of probable cause to issue the search warrants").
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Ali
See State v. Weinberg, 215 Conn. 231, 241-45 , 575 A.2d 1003 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967 , 111 S. Ct. 430 , 112 L.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Ives
See State v. Weinberg, 215 Conn. 231, 237 , 575 A.2d 1003 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967 , 111 S. Ct. 430 , 112 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Kenneth O. Nichols
(2×)
See State v. Laurick, 575 A.2d 1340, 1347 (N.J.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 429 , 112 L.Ed.2d 413 (1990); State v. Priest, 722 P.2d 576, 578-79 (Kan.1986); State v. Dowd, 478 A.2d 671, 678 (Me.1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Mitchell
(2×)
See State v. Laurick, 120 N.J. 1, 10 , 575 A.2d 1340 , cert. denied, — U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 429 , 112 L.Ed.2d 413 (1990); State v. Cerbo, supra, 78 N.J. at 605 , 397 A.2d 671 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Joly
(2×)
See State v. Weinberg, 215 Conn. 231, 244 , 575 A.2d 1003 , cert. denied, U.S. , 111 S. Ct. 430 , 112 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Honsch
We rejected this claim, holding that the trial court is required to ‘‘ ‘submit to the jury all controverted ques- tions of fact relating to an element making up [the] crime,’ ’’ but ‘‘that the location of the site of the victim’s death is not an element of the crime of murder.’’ Id., 378–79; see also State v. Weinberg, 215 Conn. 231, 232 , 251–52, 575 A.2d 1003 (location of death is not essential element of murder), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967 , 111 S. Ct. 430 , 112 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Armadore
See, e.g., State v. Weinberg, 215 Conn. 231, 255 , 575 A.2d 1003 (jury is permitted to draw inferences from evidence admitted at trial as long as those inferences are reason- able), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967 , 111 S. Ct. 430 , 112 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rosa v. Lawrence & Memorial Hospital
Struckman v. Burns, supra, 555 ; see, e.g., State v. Weinberg, 215 Conn. 231, 245 , 575 A.2d 1003 ([a]n expert witness is competent to express an opinion, even though he or she may be unwilling to state a conclusion with absolute certainty, so long as the expert’s opinion, if not stated in terms of the certain, is at least stated in terms of the probable, and not merely the possible . . .), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967 , 111 S. Ct. 430 , 112 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
MacChietto v. Keggi
Whether an expert’s testimony is expressed in terms of a reasonable probability that an event has occurred does not depend upon the semantics of the expert or his use of any particular term or phrase, but rather, is determined by looking at the entire substance of the expert’s testimony.” (Citation omitted.) Struckman v. Burns, supra, 555 ; see, e.g., State v. Weinberg, 215 Conn. 231, 245 , 575 A.2d 1003 (“[a]n expert witness is competent to express an opinion, even though he or she may be unwilling to state a conclusion with absolute certainty, so long as the expert’s opinion, if no…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Davis
See, e.g., State v. Weinberg, 215 Conn. 231, 255 , 575 A.2d 1003 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967 , 111 S. Ct. 430 , 112 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Swinton
See, e.g., State v. Weinberg, 215 Conn. 231, 242-43 , 575 A.2d 1003 (relying on rale 601 of Federal Rules of Evidence), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967 , 111 S. Ct. 430 , 112 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Nunes
As long as it is clear that the opinion of the expert is expressed in terms of probabilities, the opinion should be submitted into evidence for a jury’s consideration.” (Citation omitted.) Struckman v. Burns, supra, 555 ; see also State v. Weinberg, 215 Conn. 231, 245 , 575 A.2d 1003 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967 , 111 S. Ct. 430 , 112 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Respass
See, e.g., State v. Weinberg, 215 Conn. 231, 240 , 575 A.2d 1003 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967 , 111 S. Ct. 430 , 112 L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Sheridan
See e.g., State v. Laurick, 120 N.J. 1, 11-13 , 575 A.2d 1340 , cert. denied, 498 U.S. 967 , 111 S.Ct. 429 , 112 L.Ed.2d 413 (1990).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Wisconsin Education Association Council
v.
Wisconsin State Elections Board
v.
Wisconsin State Elections Board
No. 90-492.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 13, 1990.
Published
Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.