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.
39 New Jersey opinions name it 3 courts 1982–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gerstein v. Pughgreen2 sentences2020Moreover, the nature of a probable cause determination "does not require the fine resolution of conflicting evidence that a reasonable -doubt or A-5703-17T3 5 even a preponderance standard demands, and credibility determinations [will] seldom [be] crucial in deciding whether the evidence supports a reasonable belief in guilt." J.M., 182 N.J. at 417 (alterations in original) (quoting Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 122 (1975)). 2017Moreover, the nature of a probable cause determination "'does not require the fine resolution of conflicting evidence that a reasonable-doubt or even a preponderance standard demands, and credibility determinations [will] seldom [be] crucial in deciding whether the evidence supports a reasonable belief in guilt.'" J.M., supra, 182 N.J. at 417 (quoting Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 122 , 95 S. Ct. 854, 867 , 43 L. | 4 | 4 |
State v. Cordomagreen2 sentences2026Super. 25, 37 (App. Div. 2009), aff'd o.b., 201 N.J. 207 (2010) (concluding law enforcement's authority to seize firearms pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35 and its use of the preponderance standard is constitutional); A-0738-24 16 State v. Cordoma, 372 N.J. 2025Super. 25, 37 (App. Div. 2009), aff'd o.b., 201 N.J. 207 (2010) (concluding law enforcement's authority to seize firearms pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35 and the Act's use of the preponderance standard is constitutional) State v. Cordoma, 372 N.J. | 2 | 2 |
Atkinson v. Parsekiangreen2 sentences2020Atkinson v. Parsekian, 37 N.J. 143, 149 (1962) (citations omitted) (applying the preponderance standard in agency proceedings). 2020Atkinson v. Parsekian, 37 N.J. 143, 149 (1962) (citations omitted) (applying the preponderance standard in agency proceedings). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Koedatichgreen2 sentences2017Compare State v. Gibson, 218 N.J. 277, 292 (2014) (explaining that probable cause is a well-grounded suspicion that a crime has been committed), with State v. Williams, 93 N.J. 39, 78 (1983) (providing: "Preponderance of evidence . . . is evidence sufficient to generate a belief that the conclusion advanced is likely. 2017Compare State v. Gibson, 218 N.J. 277, 292 (2014) (explaining that probable cause is a well-grounded suspicion that a crime has been committed), with State v. Williams, 93 N.J. 39, 78 (1983) (providing: "Preponderance of evidence . . . is evidence sufficient to generate a belief that the conclusion advanced is likely. | 2 | 2 |
State v. David M. Gibson (070910)green2 sentences2017Compare State v. Gibson, 218 N.J. 277, 292 (2014) (explaining that probable cause is a well-grounded suspicion that a crime has been committed), with State v. Williams, 93 N.J. 39, 78 (1983) (providing: "Preponderance of evidence . . . is evidence sufficient to generate a belief that the conclusion advanced is likely. 2017Compare State v. Gibson, 218 N.J. 277, 292 (2014) (explaining that probable cause is a well-grounded suspicion that a crime has been committed), with State v. Williams, 93 N.J. 39, 78 (1983) (providing: "Preponderance of evidence . . . is evidence sufficient to generate a belief that the conclusion advanced is likely. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Sheppardgreen2 sentences2011The preponderance standard is considered adequate when the claim being advanced is "not one, which is either unusually subject to deception or disfavored by the law." State v. Sheppard, 197 N.J.Super. 411, 440-41 [ 484 A. 2d 1330 ] (Law Div.1984). 2011The preponderance standard is considered adequate when the claim being advanced is "not one, which is either unusually subject to deception or disfavored by the law." State v. Sheppard, 197 N.J.Super. 411, 440-41 [ 484 A. 2d 1330 ] (Law Div.1984). | 2 | 2 |
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Landgreen2 sentences2019Co. v. Land, 186 N.J. 163, 168-70 (2006) (generally endorsing a preponderance standard of proof for civil litigation, unless a higher burden is prescribed by statute or special circumstances). 2011Ibid. | 1 | 3 |
State v. JMgreen2 sentences2020Moreover, the nature of a probable cause determination "does not require the fine resolution of conflicting evidence that a reasonable -doubt or A-5703-17T3 5 even a preponderance standard demands, and credibility determinations [will] seldom [be] crucial in deciding whether the evidence supports a reasonable belief in guilt." J.M., 182 N.J. at 417 (alterations in original) (quoting Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 122 (1975)). 2017Moreover, the nature of a probable cause determination "'does not require the fine resolution of conflicting evidence that a reasonable-doubt or even a preponderance standard demands, and credibility determinations [will] seldom [be] crucial in deciding whether the evidence supports a reasonable belief in guilt.'" J.M., supra, 182 N.J. at 417 (quoting Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 122 , 95 S. Ct. 854, 867 , 43 L. | 1 | 2 |
Addington v. Texasgreen2 sentences2006Application of the preponderance standard reflects a societal judgment that both parties should “share the risk of error in roughly equal fashion.” Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 423 , 99 S.Ct. 1804, 1808 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323, 329 (1979). 2006Application of the preponderance standard reflects a societal judgment that both parties should “share the risk of error in roughly equal fashion.” Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 423 , 99 S.Ct. 1804, 1808 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323, 329 (1979). | 1 | 2 |
Steadman v. Securities & Exchange Commissiongreen2 sentences2006As this Court stated in discussing the standard of proof applied in agency adjudications under the Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to - 24: Given the long history of the preponderance standard, together with the total lack of any indication in the language of the statute or in its legislative history of an intent to alter that standard, it is reasonable to infer that the Legislature was content to continue the “traditional preponderance-of-the-evidence standard”.... [Polk, supra, 90 N.J. at 561 n. 1, 449 A.2d 7 (quoting Steadman, supra, 450 U.S. at 102 , 101 S.Ct. at 1008, 67 L 2006As this Court stated in discussing the standard of proof applied in agency adjudications under the Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to - 24: Given the long history of the preponderance standard, together with the total lack of any indication in the language of the statute or in its legislative history of an intent to alter that standard, it is reasonable to infer that the Legislature was content to continue the “traditional preponderance-of-the-evidence standard”.... [Polk, supra, 90 N.J. at 561 n. 1, 449 A.2d 7 (quoting Steadman, supra, 450 U.S. at 102 , 101 S.Ct. at 1008, 67 L | 1 | 2 |
Borough of Sayreville v. Bellefonte Ins. Co.green1 sentence2023Additionally, defendants rely on this court's opinion in Borough of Sayreville v. Bellefonte Insurance Co., 320 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Purrazzellagreen1 sentence2022This denotes a burden which lies between a preponderance standard and a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard; it should produce "a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established." In re Purrazzella, 134 N.J. 228, 240 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Dyfs v. Nsgreen1 sentence2017Super. 593 , 615, 992 A.2d 20 (App. Div. 2010) ("Under the preponderance standard, 'a litigant must establish that a desired inference is more probable than not. | 1 | 1 |
MSGW Real Estate Fund, LLC v. Borough of Mountain Lakesgreen1 sentence2017See MSGW, supra, 18 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Guardianship of K.H.O.green2 sentences2013With regard to the first prong of the test, which addresses the child’s safety, the Division must prove harm that “threatens the child’s health and will likely have continuing deleterious effects on the child.” K.H.O., supra, 161 N.J. at 352, 736 A.2d 1246 . 2013With regard to the first prong of the test, which addresses the child’s safety, the Division must prove harm that “threatens the child’s health and will likely have continuing deleterious effects on the child.” K.H.O., supra, 161 N.J. at 352, 736 A.2d 1246 . | 1 | 1 |
Abbott v. Burkegreen2 sentences2011See Abbott II, supra, 119 N.J. at 377 [ 575 A. 2d 359 ] ("[W]hile we are unable to conclude from this record that the State is clearly wrong, we would not strip all notions of equal and adequate funding from the constitutional *1061 obligation unless we were convinced that the State was clearly right." (emphasis added)); id. at 386-87 [ 575 A. 2d 359 ] ("The record convinces us of a failure of a thorough and efficient education only in the poorer urban districts." (emphasis added)); Abbott IV, supra, 149 N.J. at 196 [ 693 A. 2d 417 ] (concluding parity remedy may be "obsolete" if State "convin 2011See Abbott II, supra, 119 N.J. at 377 [ 575 A. 2d 359 ] ("[W]hile we are unable to conclude from this record that the State is clearly wrong, we would not strip all notions of equal and adequate funding from the constitutional *1061 obligation unless we were convinced that the State was clearly right." (emphasis added)); id. at 386-87 [ 575 A. 2d 359 ] ("The record convinces us of a failure of a thorough and efficient education only in the poorer urban districts." (emphasis added)); Abbott IV, supra, 149 N.J. at 196 [ 693 A. 2d 417 ] (concluding parity remedy may be "obsolete" if State "convin | 1 | 1 |
ABBOTT BY ABBOTT v. Burkegreen2 sentences2011See Abbott II, supra, 119 N.J. at 377 [ 575 A. 2d 359 ] ("[W]hile we are unable to conclude from this record that the State is clearly wrong, we would not strip all notions of equal and adequate funding from the constitutional *1061 obligation unless we were convinced that the State was clearly right." (emphasis added)); id. at 386-87 [ 575 A. 2d 359 ] ("The record convinces us of a failure of a thorough and efficient education only in the poorer urban districts." (emphasis added)); Abbott IV, supra, 149 N.J. at 196 [ 693 A. 2d 417 ] (concluding parity remedy may be "obsolete" if State "convin 2011See Abbott II, supra, 119 N.J. at 377 [ 575 A. 2d 359 ] ("[W]hile we are unable to conclude from this record that the State is clearly wrong, we would not strip all notions of equal and adequate funding from the constitutional *1061 obligation unless we were convinced that the State was clearly right." (emphasis added)); id. at 386-87 [ 575 A. 2d 359 ] ("The record convinces us of a failure of a thorough and efficient education only in the poorer urban districts." (emphasis added)); Abbott IV, supra, 149 N.J. at 196 [ 693 A. 2d 417 ] (concluding parity remedy may be "obsolete" if State "convin | 1 | 1 |
| Abbott Ex Rel. Abbott v. Burkegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Mathews v. Eldridgegreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Paul J. Savoiegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ramsey v. United Mine Workersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Dept. of Health v. Concrete Specialties, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| State Ex Rel. Humphrey v. Alpine Air Products, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| United States of America, and Cross-Appellee v. Ekelman & Associates, Inc., and Ekelman & Associates, Inc., Cross-Appellantsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Herman & MacLean v. Huddlestongreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Bryan K. Kalunagreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Dario Restrepogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Parke v. Raleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Graygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Bruton v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Grossgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lee v. Illinoisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| F. v. M.green | 1 | 1 |
| Cranberry Lake Quarry Co. v. Johnsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Pandoligreen | 1 | 1 |
| Santosky v. Kramergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Vance v. Terrazasgreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Crespo v. Crespo
green
2 sentences2026Super. 25, 37 (App. Div. 2009), aff'd o.b., 201 N.J. 207 (2010) (concluding law enforcement's authority to seize firearms pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35 and its use of the preponderance standard is constitutional); A-0738-24 16 State v. Cordoma, 372 N.J. 2025Super. 25, 37 (App. Div. 2009), aff'd o.b., 201 N.J. 207 (2010) (concluding law enforcement's authority to seize firearms pursuant to the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act, N.J.S.A. 2C:25-17 to -35 and the Act's use of the preponderance standard is constitutional) State v. Cordoma, 372 N.J. | 2 | 2025–2026 |
Roe v. Roe
green
2 sentences2010VI, § 2,113, [was] utterly without merit[,]” id. at 34, 972 A.2d 1169 ; (2) that Roe v. Roe, 253 N.J.Super. 418 , 601 A.2d 1201 (App.Div.1992), required the rejection of “defendant’s arguments regarding the constitutional sufficiency of the preponderance standard in actions brought pursuant to the Act,” id. at 37, 601 A.2d 1201 ; (3) that “the preponderance standard, as applied in domestic violence matters, conforms with the requirements of due process[,]” ibid.; (4) that “defendant’s argument that by allowing the seizure of a defendant’s firearms upon a finding of domestic violence, the Act p 2010VI, § 2,113, [was] utterly without merit[,]” id. at 34, 972 A.2d 1169 ; (2) that Roe v. Roe, 253 N.J.Super. 418 , 601 A.2d 1201 (App.Div.1992), required the rejection of “defendant’s arguments regarding the constitutional sufficiency of the preponderance standard in actions brought pursuant to the Act,” id. at 37, 601 A.2d 1201 ; (3) that “the preponderance standard, as applied in domestic violence matters, conforms with the requirements of due process[,]” ibid.; (4) that “defendant’s argument that by allowing the seizure of a defendant’s firearms upon a finding of domestic violence, the Act p | 2 | 2009–2010 |
In Re the Revocation of the License of Polk
green
2 sentences2009Thus, although not referring to Mathews by name, it is nevertheless clear that Roe considered "the nature of the private interest affected," "the risk of error in the ultimate determination created" by the use of the preponderance standard, and "the countervailing governmental interest to be furthered." Polk, supra, 90 N.J. at 562 , 449 A. 2d 7 ; see also Mathews, supra, 424 U.S. at 335 , 96 S.Ct. at 903 , 47 L.Ed. 2d at 33 . 2009Thus, although not referring to Mathews by name, it is nevertheless clear that Roe considered "the nature of the private interest affected," "the risk of error in the ultimate determination created" by the use of the preponderance standard, and "the countervailing governmental interest to be furthered." Polk, supra, 90 N.J. at 562 , 449 A. 2d 7 ; see also Mathews, supra, 424 U.S. at 335 , 96 S.Ct. at 903 , 47 L.Ed. 2d at 33 . | 2 | 2006–2009 |
In re International Longshoremen's Ass'n
green
2 sentences2006Huddleston, supra, 459 U.S. at 388-90 , 103 S.Ct. at 691 , 74 L.Ed.2d at 560 (§ 10(b) of Securities Act of 1934); Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91, 102 , 101 S.Ct. 999, 1008 , 67 L.Ed.2d 69, 79 , reh. denied, 451 U.S. 933, 101 S.Ct. 2008 , 68 L. 2006Huddleston, supra, 459 U.S. at 388-90 , 103 S.Ct. at 691 , 74 L.Ed.2d at 560 (§ 10(b) of Securities Act of 1934); Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91, 102 , 101 S.Ct. 999, 1008 , 67 L.Ed.2d 69, 79 , reh. denied, 451 U.S. 933, 101 S.Ct. 2008 , 68 L. | 2 | 1982–2006 |
Steadman v. Securities & Exchange Commission
green
2 sentences2006Huddleston, supra, 459 U.S. at 388-90 , 103 S.Ct. at 691 , 74 L.Ed.2d at 560 (§ 10(b) of Securities Act of 1934); Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91, 102 , 101 S.Ct. 999, 1008 , 67 L.Ed.2d 69, 79 , reh. denied, 451 U.S. 933, 101 S.Ct. 2008 , 68 L. 2006Huddleston, supra, 459 U.S. at 388-90 , 103 S.Ct. at 691 , 74 L.Ed. 2d at 560 (§ 10(b) of Securities Act of 1934); Steadman v. SEC, 450 U.S. 91, 102 , 101 S.Ct. 999, 1008 , 67 L.Ed. 2d 69, 79 , reh. denied, 451 U.S. 933 , 101 S.Ct. 2008 , 68 L. | 2 | 1982–2006 |
State v. Oliver
green
1 sentence2026Rather, due process requires a higher standard of proof when the factor to be proved would have an extremely disproportionate effect on the sentence relative to the offense of conviction." Ibid. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Silver v. Silver
green
1 sentence2026Accordingly, the court entered an FRO against defendant on February 12, 2025. 2 387 N.J. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
VINELAND CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. v. Township of Pennsauken
green
1 sentence2019This allocation of evidential burdens appropriately recognizes the legislative nature of the decision to acquire the parcel for a redevelopment project through eminent domain, and the general deference courts owe to such legislative A-4556-17T2 25 decisions, cf. Vineland Construction, 395 N.J. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. F.M.
green
2 sentences2013Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420, 447 , 48 A.3d 1075 (2012); N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) — a higher threshold than the preponderance standard in abuse and neglect hearings. 2013Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. F.M., 211 N.J. 420, 447 , 48 A.3d 1075 (2012); N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) — a higher threshold than the preponderance standard in abuse and neglect hearings. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Abbott v. Burke
green
2 sentences2011See Abbott II, supra, 119 N.J. at 377 [ 575 A. 2d 359 ] ("[W]hile we are unable to conclude from this record that the State is clearly wrong, we would not strip all notions of equal and adequate funding from the constitutional *1061 obligation unless we were convinced that the State was clearly right." (emphasis added)); id. at 386-87 [ 575 A. 2d 359 ] ("The record convinces us of a failure of a thorough and efficient education only in the poorer urban districts." (emphasis added)); Abbott IV, supra, 149 N.J. at 196 [ 693 A. 2d 417 ] (concluding parity remedy may be "obsolete" if State "convin 2011See Abbott II, supra, 119 N.J. at 377 [ 575 A. 2d 359 ] ("[W]hile we are unable to conclude from this record that the State is clearly wrong, we would not strip all notions of equal and adequate funding from the constitutional *1061 obligation unless we were convinced that the State was clearly right." (emphasis added)); id. at 386-87 [ 575 A. 2d 359 ] ("The record convinces us of a failure of a thorough and efficient education only in the poorer urban districts." (emphasis added)); Abbott IV, supra, 149 N.J. at 196 [ 693 A. 2d 417 ] (concluding parity remedy may be "obsolete" if State "convin | 1 | 2011–2011 |
ABBOTT BY ABBOTT v. Burke
green
2 sentences2011See Abbott II, supra, 119 N.J. at 377 [ 575 A. 2d 359 ] ("[W]hile we are unable to conclude from this record that the State is clearly wrong, we would not strip all notions of equal and adequate funding from the constitutional *1061 obligation unless we were convinced that the State was clearly right." (emphasis added)); id. at 386-87 [ 575 A. 2d 359 ] ("The record convinces us of a failure of a thorough and efficient education only in the poorer urban districts." (emphasis added)); Abbott IV, supra, 149 N.J. at 196 [ 693 A. 2d 417 ] (concluding parity remedy may be "obsolete" if State "convin 2011See Abbott II, supra, 119 N.J. at 377 [ 575 A. 2d 359 ] ("[W]hile we are unable to conclude from this record that the State is clearly wrong, we would not strip all notions of equal and adequate funding from the constitutional *1061 obligation unless we were convinced that the State was clearly right." (emphasis added)); id. at 386-87 [ 575 A. 2d 359 ] ("The record convinces us of a failure of a thorough and efficient education only in the poorer urban districts." (emphasis added)); Abbott IV, supra, 149 N.J. at 196 [ 693 A. 2d 417 ] (concluding parity remedy may be "obsolete" if State "convin | 1 | 2011–2011 |
In Re Williams
green
2 sentences2011Williams, supra, 169 N.J. at 271-72 , 777 A.2d 323 . *290 To satisfy the intermediate elear-and-convincing standard, the fact finder “must be persuaded that the truth of the contention is ‘highly probable.’ ” 2 McCormick on Evidence § 340, at 487 (Broun ed., 6th ed. 2006) (citation omitted). 2011Williams, supra, 169 N.J. at 271-72 , 777 A.2d 323 . *290 To satisfy the intermediate elear-and-convincing standard, the fact finder “must be persuaded that the truth of the contention is ‘highly probable.’ ” 2 McCormick on Evidence § 340, at 487 (Broun ed., 6th ed. 2006) (citation omitted). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Abbott Ex Rel. Abbott v. Burke
green
2 sentences2011See Abbott II, supra, 119 N.J. at 377 [ 575 A. 2d 359 ] ("[W]hile we are unable to conclude from this record that the State is clearly wrong, we would not strip all notions of equal and adequate funding from the constitutional *1061 obligation unless we were convinced that the State was clearly right." (emphasis added)); id. at 386-87 [ 575 A. 2d 359 ] ("The record convinces us of a failure of a thorough and efficient education only in the poorer urban districts." (emphasis added)); Abbott IV, supra, 149 N.J. at 196 [ 693 A. 2d 417 ] (concluding parity remedy may be "obsolete" if State "convin 2011See Abbott II, supra, 119 N.J. at 377 [ 575 A. 2d 359 ] ("[W]hile we are unable to conclude from this record that the State is clearly wrong, we would not strip all notions of equal and adequate funding from the constitutional *1061 obligation unless we were convinced that the State was clearly right." (emphasis added)); id. at 386-87 [ 575 A. 2d 359 ] ("The record convinces us of a failure of a thorough and efficient education only in the poorer urban districts." (emphasis added)); Abbott IV, supra, 149 N.J. at 196 [ 693 A. 2d 417 ] (concluding parity remedy may be "obsolete" if State "convin | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Crespo v. Crespo green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| State v. Reyes green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Gennari v. Weichert Co. Realtors green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. DeLuca green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| State v. Johnson green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| State v. Oliver green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| McMillan v. Pennsylvania red | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Jones v. United States green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Spaeth v. United States green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Reed v. Social Security Administration green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Remington Arms Co. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Stephenson v. RA Jones & Co., Inc. green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Marano v. Sabbio green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Martin v. Ohio green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| United States v. Ronald Dale McGatha green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| In Re Kallen green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| State v. Spruill green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| State v. Fahrer green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| I. v. D. green | 1 | 1989–1989 |
| State v. Grant green | 1 | 1988–1988 |
| State v. Tropea green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| In Re ALU green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| State v. Fields green | 1 | 1984–1984 |
| Webb v. O'BRIEN green | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.