green
Positive treatment
4.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1968 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1968
1997
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. WILLIAM T. STELTZ (08-09-0207 AND 09-06-2098, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
See State v. Matlack, 49 N.J. 491, 502 , cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1009 , 88 S. Ct. 572 , 19 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Reddick
See State v. Matlack, 49 N.J. 491, 498-499 (1967), cert. den. 389 U.S. 1009 , 88 S.Ct. 572 , 19 L.Ed. 2d 606 (1967), holding that a trial witness may testify as to a previous out-of-court identification to corroborate an in-court identification, and State v. Draughn, 121 N.J.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Corbitt
See State v. Matlack, 49 N.J. 491 (1967), cert. den. 389 U.S. 1009 , 88 S.Ct. 572 , 19 L.Ed. 2d 606 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see"
James S. Gerrard v. William G. Larsen, Special Administrator of the Estate of Jack K. Gibbens, Deceased
See Cauefield v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 378 F.2d 876 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1009 , 88 S.Ct. 571 , 19 L.Ed.2d 606 (1967); Friedenthal v. Williams, 271 F.Supp. 524 (E.D.La.1967), aff’d per curiam, 395 F.2d 202 (5th Cir. 1968); Nemeth v. Aluminum Cooking Utensil Co., 146 Cal.App.2d 405 , 304 P.2d 129 (1956); Ramos v. Horton, 456 S.W.2d 565 (Tex.Civ.App.1970); see also In re Air Crash Disaster near Dayton, Ohio, 350 F.Supp. 757 , 766—67 (S.D.
discussed
Cited "see"
International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. v. General Telephone & Electronics Corp.
See Cauefield v. Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, 378 F.2d 876 (5th Cir. 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1009 , 88 S.Ct. 571 , 19 L.Ed.2d 606 (1967), where the plaintiffs were es-topped from litigating a matter because of an adverse jury decision in a prior suit where the plaintiffs were not parties, but who appeared and testified to matters which were essential to their recovery in their own suit.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Conners
See State v. Matlack, 49 N.J. 491, 501-502 (1967), cert. den. 389 U.S. 1009 , 88 S.Ct. 572 , 19 L.Ed.2d 606 (1967). *485 V The State contends that the County Court erred in holding that the inspection certificates of the Breathalyzer instrument were inadmissible without testimony and cross-examination of the State Police coordinator who tested the machine.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Cooper
Compare State v. Matlack, 49 N.J. 491 , 231 A. 2d 369 , cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1009 , 88 S.Ct. 572 , 19 L.Ed. 2d 606 (1967), where the defendant did not successfully attack his underlying convictions, but rather demonstrated that his sentence was "in excess of the statutory maximum." Rodriguez, supra, 97 N.J. at 272 , 478 A. 2d 408 (citing Matlack, supra, 49 N.J. at 501-02 , 231 A. 2d 369 ).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Young
Compare State v. Matlack, 49 N.J. 491 , 231 A. 2d 369 , cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1009 , 88 S.Ct. 572 , 19 L.Ed. 2d 606 (1967), where the defendant did not successfully attack his underlying convictions, but rather demonstrated that his sentence was "in excess of the statutory maximum." Rodriguez, supra, 97 N.J. at 272 , 478 A. 2d 408 (citing Matlack, supra, 49 N.J. at 501-02 , 231 A. 2d 369 ).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
People v. Bass
See also People v. Hill, 67 Cal.2d 105 , 60 Cal.Rptr. 234 , 429 P.2d 586 (1967), cert. den. 389 U.S. 1009 , 88 S.Ct. 572 , 19 L.Ed.2d 607 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Conde v. Starlight I, Inc.
See Armand v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., 482 So.2d 802, 804 (La.App.Ct.1986) (“[A]ll experts agreed that .30% or .23% [blood alcohol] would impair the motor abilities and judgment of anyone.”); see also People v. Modesto, 66 Cal.2d 695 , 59 Cal.Rptr. 124, 126 , 427 P.2d 788, 790 , cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1009 , 88 S.Ct. 574 , 19 L.Ed.2d 608 (1967), overruled on other grounds, Maine v. Superior Court, 68 Cal.2d 375 , 66 Cal.Rptr. 724 , 729 n. 8, 438 P.2d 372 , 377 n. 8 (1968).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Conde v. Starlight I, Inc.
See Armand v. Louisiana ___ ______ _________ Power & Light Co., 482 So.2d 802, 804 (Ct. App. La. 1986) ("[A]ll _________________ experts agreed that .30% or .23% [blood alcohol] would impair the motor abilities and judgment of anyone."); see also People v. ___ ____ ______ Modesto, 427 P.2d 788, 790 (Cal.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1009 _______ _____ ______ (1967), overruled on other grounds, Maine v. Superior Court, 438 _________ __ _____ _______ _____ ______________ P.2d 372, 377 n.8 (Cal. 1968).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bogenholm ex rel. Bogenholm v. House
See, e.g., Cauefteld v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 378 F.2d 876 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1009 , 88 S.Ct. 571 , 19 L.Ed.2d 606 (1967) (the plaintiffs’ claim of cemetery desecration was identical to the claim litigated in the prior action, plaintiffs in both actions were represented by the same attorneys, plaintiffs in second action actively participated as witnesses in the first trial, and the court expressly confined its holding to the unusual facts of the case); Johnson v. Nationwide Business Forms, Inc., 103 Ill.App.3d 631 , 59 Ill.Dec. 339 , 431 N.E.2d 1096 (1981) (pri…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Tully v. Scheu
Compare State v. Kramer, 98 N.J.Super. 539 , 237 A.2d 907, 909-10 (Law Div.1967) (in postconviction relief proceeding, defendant must show by "preponderance of the evidence that his pleas were not understandingly and voluntarily made and must make strict showing with a solid affirmative basis for the relief sought") with State v. Matlack, 49 N.J. 491 , 231 A.2d 369, 374 , cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1009 , 88 S.Ct. 572 , 19 L.Ed.2d 606 (1967) (in sentence reduction hearing, the state court employs its "reconsidered leniency"). 19 However, the Tully I court found this difference significant only in …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Tully v. Scheu
Compare State v. Kramer, 98 N.J.Super. 539 , 237 A.2d 907, 909-10 (Law Div.1967) (in postconviction relief proceeding, defendant must show by “preponderance of the evidence that his pleas were not understandingly and voluntarily made and must make strict showing with a solid affirmative basis for the relief sought”) with State v. Matlack, 49 N.J. 491 , 231 A.2d 369, 374 , cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1009 , 88 S.Ct. 572 , 19 L.Ed.2d 606 (1967) (in sentence reduction hearing, the state court employs its “reconsidered leniency”).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Farrow
See, e.g., State v. Matlack, 49 N. J. 491 (1967), cert. den. 389 U. S. 1009 , 88 S. Ct. 572 , 19 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Matlack
v.
New Jersey
v.
New Jersey
No. 651.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 11, 1967.
389 U.S. 1009
Cited by 18 opinions | Published
Sup. Ct. N. J. Certiorari denied.