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 1988–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
A-3601-13t2 Ariel Schochet v. Sharona Schochetgreen1 sentence2020See R. 1:10-3; see also Schochet v. Schochet, 435 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Anyanwu v. Anyanwugreen1 sentence2015There is no question that the judge realized this was a summary contempt proceeding and not a Rule 1:10-3 proceeding. 9 In fact, the judge revealed his awareness of these inherently different proceedings in his written opinion when he stated that "[a] contempt of court may be considered an offense against governmental authority, and may be punished criminally[,]" but, "[o]n the other hand, 'a proceeding to afford a litigant supplemental relief from an adverse party's failure to obey a court's order is civil.'" In short, the judge clearly demonstrated his understanding of the difference; we the | 1 | 1 |
Sacher v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1988See generally, expounding on the reasons why the offended judge ought not conduct the contempt hearing except when necessary to continue the orderly progress of trial, the dissenting opinion of Justice Frankfurter in Sacher v. United States, 343 U.S. 1, 29-30 , 72 S.Ct. 451, 465 , 96 L.Ed. 717 , 734 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). 1988See generally, expounding on the reasons why the offended judge ought not conduct the contempt hearing except when necessary to continue the orderly progress of trial, the dissenting opinion of Justice Frankfurter in Sacher v. United States, 343 U.S. 1, 29-30 , 72 S.Ct. 451, 465 , 96 L.Ed. 717 , 734 (1952) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Lisa Ippolito v. Tobia Ippolito
green
1 sentence2020Ippolito v. Ippolito, 443 N.J. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Stancil v. ACE USA
green
2 sentences2019Specifically, N.J.S.A. 34:15-28.2 empowers a compensation judge to respond to noncompliance by (a) imposing costs, interest, and legal fees; (b) imposing fines and penalties; (c) "[c]los[ing] proofs, dismiss[ing] a claim or suppress[ing] a defense"; (d) "[e]xclud[ing] evidence or witnesses"; (e) holding a contempt hearing after which a finding of contempt can **266 be enforced in Superior Court; and (f) "[t]ak[ing] other actions deemed appropriate by the judge of compensation with respect to the claim." We explored the enforcement tools made available under N.J.S.A. 34:15-28.2 in Stancil , in 2019Specifically, N.J.S.A. 34:15-28.2 empowers a compensation judge to respond to noncompliance by (a) imposing costs, interest, and legal fees; (b) imposing fines and penalties; (c) "[c]los[ing] proofs, dismiss[ing] a claim or suppress[ing] a defense"; (d) "[e]xclud[ing] evidence or witnesses"; (e) holding a contempt hearing after which a finding of contempt can **266 be enforced in Superior Court; and (f) "[t]ak[ing] other actions deemed appropriate by the judge of compensation with respect to the claim." We explored the enforcement tools made available under N.J.S.A. 34:15-28.2 in Stancil , in | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.