Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 2021–2025 5 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Jersey courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. David Pomianek, Jr. (072293)green2 sentences2025Super. 272 , 288 (App. Div. 2022) (holding that "under the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, 'when a statute is susceptible to two reasonable interpretations, one constitutional and one not, ' courts assume the Legislature would want the courts to construe it 'in a way that conforms to the Constitution.'" (quoting State v. Pomianek, 221 N.J. 66, 90-91 (2015))). 2021See State v. Pomianek, 221 N.J. 66, 90-91 (2015) (discussing the doctrine of constitutional avoidance). | 4 | 4 |
Committee to Recall Menendez v. Wellsgreen1 sentence2023As a general proposition, under the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, courts "strive to avoid reaching constitutional questions unless required to do so." Comm. to Recall Robert Menendez from the Off. of U.S. Senator v. Wells, 204 N.J. 79, 95 (2010). | 1 | 1 |
Marjarum v. Township of Hamiltongreen1 sentence2023Relatedly, "as a matter of judicial restraint, 'courts should not decide cases where a judgment cannot grant relief.'" Marjarum v. Twp. of Hamilton, 336 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.