32 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2021 1 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. Bursteingreen2 sentences2021When a new rule of law is announced by a court decision, there are four options: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whose operative facts arise after the new rule is announced; (2) apply the new rule to future cases and to the parties in the case announcing the new rule, while applying the old rule to all other pending and past litigation; (3) grant the new rule . . . [pipeline] retroactivity, applying it to cases in (1) and (2) as well as to pending cases where the parties have not yet exhausted all avenues of direct review; and, finally, (4) give the n 2020That having been determined, we can (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whose operative facts arise after the new rule is announced; (2) apply the new rule to future cases and to the parties in the case announcing the new rule, while applying the old rule to all other pending and past litigation; (3) grant the new rule [pipeline] retroactivity, applying it to cases in (1) and (2) as well as to pending cases where the parties have not yet exhausted all avenues of direct review; and, finally, (4) give the new rule complete retroactive effect[.] [Burstein, 8 | 9 | 25 |
State v. Nashgreen2 sentences2021When a new rule of law is announced by a court decision, there are four options: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whose operative facts arise after the new rule is announced; (2) apply the new rule to future cases and to the parties in the case announcing the new rule, while applying the old rule to all other pending and past litigation; (3) grant the new rule . . . [pipeline] retroactivity, applying it to cases in (1) and (2) as well as to pending cases where the parties have not yet exhausted all avenues of direct review; and, finally, (4) give the n 2012When confronted with the application of a new rule, four options have been recognized as appropriate for consideration: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whose operative facts arise after the new rule is announced; (2) apply the new rule to future cases and to the parties in the case announcing the new rule, while applying the old rule to all other pending and past litigation; (3) grant the new rule limited retroactivity, applying it to cases in (1) and (2) as well as to pending cases where the parties have not yet exhausted all avenues of direct review | 9 | 19 |
State v. Fealgreen2 sentences2019A new rule exists if " 'it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government ... [or] if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final.' " State v. Lark , 117 N.J. 331 , 339 [ 567 A.2d 197 ] (1989) (quoting Teague v. Lane , 489 U.S. 288 , 301 [ 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 ] (1989) ). *445 [ Feal , 194 N.J. at 308 , 944 A.2d 599 (alteration in original).] Where a new rule of law is introduced, the court has four options: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whos 2019A new rule exists if " 'it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government ... [or] if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final.' " State v. Lark , 117 N.J. 331 , 339 [ 567 A.2d 197 ] (1989) (quoting Teague v. Lane , 489 U.S. 288 , 301 [ 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 ] (1989) ). *445 [ Feal , 194 N.J. at 308 , 944 A.2d 599 (alteration in original).] Where a new rule of law is introduced, the court has four options: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whos | 4 | 6 |
State v. Knightgreen2 sentences2021When a new rule of law is announced by a court decision, there are four options: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whose operative facts arise after the new rule is announced; (2) apply the new rule to future cases and to the parties in the case announcing the new rule, while applying the old rule to all other pending and past litigation; (3) grant the new rule . . . [pipeline] retroactivity, applying it to cases in (1) and (2) as well as to pending cases where the parties have not yet exhausted all avenues of direct review; and, finally, (4) give the n 2019A new rule exists if " 'it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government ... [or] if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final.' " State v. Lark , 117 N.J. 331 , 339 [ 567 A.2d 197 ] (1989) (quoting Teague v. Lane , 489 U.S. 288 , 301 [ 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 ] (1989) ). *445 [ Feal , 194 N.J. at 308 , 944 A.2d 599 (alteration in original).] Where a new rule of law is introduced, the court has four options: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whos | 2 | 8 |
State v. Larkgreen2 sentences2019A new rule exists if " 'it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government ... [or] if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final.' " State v. Lark , 117 N.J. 331 , 339 [ 567 A.2d 197 ] (1989) (quoting Teague v. Lane , 489 U.S. 288 , 301 [ 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 ] (1989) ). *445 [ Feal , 194 N.J. at 308 , 944 A.2d 599 (alteration in original).] Where a new rule of law is introduced, the court has four options: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whos 2019A new rule exists if " 'it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government ... [or] if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final.' " State v. Lark , 117 N.J. 331 , 339 [ 567 A.2d 197 ] (1989) (quoting Teague v. Lane , 489 U.S. 288 , 301 [ 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 ] (1989) ). *445 [ Feal , 194 N.J. at 308 , 944 A.2d 599 (alteration in original).] Where a new rule of law is introduced, the court has four options: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whos | 2 | 5 |
Rutherford Education Ass'n v. Board of Educationgreen2 sentences1996This Court has held that in determining whether to apply a new rule prospectively or retroactively a court may follow one of four options: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whose operative facts arise after the new rule is announced; (2) apply the new rule to future cases and to the parties in the case announcing the new rule, while applying the old rule to all other pending and past litigation; (3) grant the new rule limited retroactivity, applying it to cases in (1) and (2) as well as to pending cases where the parties have not yet exhausted all avenu 1996This Court has held that in determining whether to apply a new rule prospectively or retroactively a court may follow one of four options: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whose operative facts arise after the new rule is announced; (2) apply the new rule to future cases and to the parties in the case announcing the new rule, while applying the old rule to all other pending and past litigation; (3) grant the new rule limited retroactivity, applying it to cases in (1) and (2) as well as to pending cases where the parties have not yet exhausted all avenu | 2 | 3 |
State v. G.E.P.green2 sentences2020That having been determined, we can (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whose operative facts arise after the new rule is announced; (2) apply the new rule to future cases and to the parties in the case announcing the new rule, while applying the old rule to all other pending and past litigation; (3) grant the new rule [pipeline] retroactivity, applying it to cases in (1) and (2) as well as to pending cases where the parties have not yet exhausted all avenues of direct review; and, finally, (4) give the new rule complete retroactive effect[.] [Burstein, 8 2019A court has four options when a new rule of law is introduced: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whose operative facts arise after the new rule is announced; (2) apply the new rule to future cases and to the parties in the case announcing the new rule, while applying the old rule to all other pending and past litigation; (3) grant the new rule [pipeline] retroactivity, applying it to cases in (1) and (2) as well as to pending cases where the parties have not yet exhausted all avenues of direct review; and, finally, (4) give the new rule complete retroac | 1 | 3 |
State v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2019A new rule exists if " 'it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government ... [or] if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final.' " State v. Lark , 117 N.J. 331 , 339 [ 567 A.2d 197 ] (1989) (quoting Teague v. Lane , 489 U.S. 288 , 301 [ 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 ] (1989) ). *445 [ Feal , 194 N.J. at 308 , 944 A.2d 599 (alteration in original).] Where a new rule of law is introduced, the court has four options: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whos 2019A new rule exists if " 'it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government ... [or] if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final.' " State v. Lark , 117 N.J. 331 , 339 [ 567 A.2d 197 ] (1989) (quoting Teague v. Lane , 489 U.S. 288 , 301 [ 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 ] (1989) ). *445 [ Feal , 194 N.J. at 308 , 944 A.2d 599 (alteration in original).] Where a new rule of law is introduced, the court has four options: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whos | 1 | 2 |
Teague v. Lanegreen2 sentences2019A new rule exists if " 'it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government ... [or] if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final.' " State v. Lark , 117 N.J. 331 , 339 [ 567 A.2d 197 ] (1989) (quoting Teague v. Lane , 489 U.S. 288 , 301 [ 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 ] (1989) ). *445 [ Feal , 194 N.J. at 308 , 944 A.2d 599 (alteration in original).] Where a new rule of law is introduced, the court has four options: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whos 2019A new rule exists if " 'it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government ... [or] if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final.' " State v. Lark , 117 N.J. 331 , 339 [ 567 A.2d 197 ] (1989) (quoting Teague v. Lane , 489 U.S. 288 , 301 [ 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 ] (1989) ). *445 [ Feal , 194 N.J. at 308 , 944 A.2d 599 (alteration in original).] Where a new rule of law is introduced, the court has four options: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whos | 1 | 2 |
State v. Purnellgreen1 sentence2021The second factor, or "degree of reliance," is evaluated by assessing whether the old rule was administered in good faith reliance on constitutional norms and whether the "number of precedents reaffirming its validity" had caused the rule to "bec[o]me firmly entrenched in the law." Purnell, 161 N.J. at 55-56 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Anderson, 127 N.J. 191, 204 (1992)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Andersongreen1 sentence2021The second factor, or "degree of reliance," is evaluated by assessing whether the old rule was administered in good faith reliance on constitutional norms and whether the "number of precedents reaffirming its validity" had caused the rule to "bec[o]me firmly entrenched in the law." Purnell, 161 N.J. at 55-56 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Anderson, 127 N.J. 191, 204 (1992)). | 1 | 1 |
R.M. v. Supreme Court of New Jerseygreen1 sentence2019Super. 436, 445 (App. Div. 2019) (first alteration in original) (quoting State v. Burstein, 85 N.J. 394, 402-03 (1981)).] In determining whether a new rule of law has retroactive application, a court must balance "'(1) the purpose of the rule and whether it would be furthered by a retroactive application, (2) the degree of reliance placed on the old rule by those who administered it, and (3) the effect a retroactive application would have on the administration of justice.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Feal, 194 N.J. 293, 308 (2008)); see also R.M. v. Supreme Court, 185 N.J. 208, 230 (2005) (applyi | 1 | 1 |
Alderiso v. Medical Center of Ocean County, Inc.green2 sentences2003See also, Alderiso v. Medical Center, 167 N.J. 191 , 770 A. 2d 275 (2001); SASCO 1997 NI, LLC v. Zudkewich, 166 N.J. 579, 596 , 767 A. 2d 469 (2001). 2003See also, Alderiso v. Medical Center, 167 N.J. 191 , 770 A. 2d 275 (2001); SASCO 1997 NI, LLC v. Zudkewich, 166 N.J. 579, 596 , 767 A. 2d 469 (2001). | 1 | 1 |
Accountemps Division of Robert Half of Philadelphia, Inc. v. Birch Tree Group, Ltd.green2 sentences1996This Court has held that in determining whether to apply a new rule prospectively or retroactively a court may follow one of four options: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whose operative facts arise after the new rule is announced; (2) apply the new rule to future cases and to the parties in the case announcing the new rule, while applying the old rule to all other pending and past litigation; (3) grant the new rule limited retroactivity, applying it to cases in (1) and (2) as well as to pending cases where the parties have not yet exhausted all avenu 1996This Court has held that in determining whether to apply a new rule prospectively or retroactively a court may follow one of four options: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whose operative facts arise after the new rule is announced; (2) apply the new rule to future cases and to the parties in the case announcing the new rule, while applying the old rule to all other pending and past litigation; (3) grant the new rule limited retroactivity, applying it to cases in (1) and (2) as well as to pending cases where the parties have not yet exhausted all avenu | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hempelegreen1 sentence1992See State v. Tanaka, 67 Haw. 658 , 701 P. 2d 1274 (1985). [4] The Supreme Court only found the searches to be constitutionally infirm under the New Jersey Constitution, concluding that there was no impediment to the police seizing garbage bags left out for collection. [120 N.J. at 223, 576 A. 2d 793 ] [5] The Supreme Court has observed that it has four options to determine the retroactivity of a decision: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whose operative facts arise after the new rule is announced; (2) apply the new rule to future cases and to the parti | 1 | 1 |
State v. Tanakagreen2 sentences1992See State v. Tanaka, 67 Haw. 658 , 701 P. 2d 1274 (1985). [4] The Supreme Court only found the searches to be constitutionally infirm under the New Jersey Constitution, concluding that there was no impediment to the police seizing garbage bags left out for collection. [120 N.J. at 223, 576 A. 2d 793 ] [5] The Supreme Court has observed that it has four options to determine the retroactivity of a decision: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whose operative facts arise after the new rule is announced; (2) apply the new rule to future cases and to the parti 1992See State v. Tanaka, 67 Haw. 658 , 701 P. 2d 1274 (1985). [4] The Supreme Court only found the searches to be constitutionally infirm under the New Jersey Constitution, concluding that there was no impediment to the police seizing garbage bags left out for collection. [120 N.J. at 223, 576 A. 2d 793 ] [5] The Supreme Court has observed that it has four options to determine the retroactivity of a decision: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whose operative facts arise after the new rule is announced; (2) apply the new rule to future cases and to the parti | 1 | 1 |
Linkletter v. Walkerred2 sentences1989State v. Nash, 64 N.J. 464, 468-70 (1974). [Id. at 402-03.] In the past, our choice among these four options was informed by weighing (1) the purpose of the rule and whether it would be furthered by a retroactive application, (2) the degree of reliance placed on the old rule by those who administered it, and (3) the effect a retroactive application would have on the administration of justice. [State v. Nash, supra, 64 N.J. at 471 .] Although these factors were derived from federal retroactivity jurisprudence, see, e.g., Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 629 , 85 S.Ct. 1731, 1737 , 14 L.Ed.2d 1989State v. Nash, 64 N.J. 464, 468-70 (1974). [Id. at 402-03.] In the past, our choice among these four options was informed by weighing (1) the purpose of the rule and whether it would be furthered by a retroactive application, (2) the degree of reliance placed on the old rule by those who administered it, and (3) the effect a retroactive application would have on the administration of justice. [State v. Nash, supra, 64 N.J. at 471 .] Although these factors were derived from federal retroactivity jurisprudence, see, e.g., Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 629 , 85 S.Ct. 1731, 1737 , 14 L.Ed.2d | 1 | 1 |
Darrow v. Hanover Townshipgreen2 sentences1984Most frequently "a weighing of the various policies involved [has] called for retrospectivity", Darrow v. Hanover Twp., 58 N.J. 410, 413-14 (1971). 1984Most frequently “a weighing of the various policies involved [has] called for retrospectivity”, Darrow v. Hanover Twp., 58 N.J. 410 , 413-14 (1971). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Coons v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences1999When confronted with an issue of retroactive or prospective application, a court may choose from four possible common law options: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases *570 whose operative facts arise after the new rule is announced; (2) apply the new rule to future cases and to the parties in the case announcing the new rule, while applying the old rule to all other pending and past litigation; (3) grant the new rule limited retroactivity, applying it to cases in (1) and (2) as well as to pending cases where the parties have not yet exhausted all avenues 1999When confronted with an issue of retroactive or prospective application, a court may choose from four possible common law options: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases *570 whose operative facts arise after the new rule is announced; (2) apply the new rule to future cases and to the parties in the case announcing the new rule, while applying the old rule to all other pending and past litigation; (3) grant the new rule limited retroactivity, applying it to cases in (1) and (2) as well as to pending cases where the parties have not yet exhausted all avenues | 3 | 1984–2000 |
Fischer v. Canario
green
2 sentences2012The Court has identified four options for implementing a new rule of law: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whose operative facts arise after the new rule is announced; (2) apply the new rule to future cases and to the parties in the case announcing the new rule, while applying the old rule to all other pending and past litigation; (3) grant the new rule limited retroactivity, applying it to cases in (1) and (2) as well as to pending cases where the parties have not yet exhausted all avenues of direct review; and finally, (4) give the new rule complete 2012The Court has identified four options for implementing a new rule of law: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whose operative facts arise after the new rule is announced; (2) apply the new rule to future cases and to the parties in the case announcing the new rule, while applying the old rule to all other pending and past litigation; (3) grant the new rule limited retroactivity, applying it to cases in (1) and (2) as well as to pending cases where the parties have not yet exhausted all avenues of direct review; and finally, (4) give the new rule complete | 2 | 1996–2012 |
State v. Cummings
green
2 sentences2008The first factor is clearly the most important, "pivotal consideration." State v. Cummings, 184 N.J. 84, 97 , 875 A. 2d 906 (2005) (citations omitted). 2008The first factor is clearly the most important, "pivotal consideration." State v. Cummings, 184 N.J. 84, 97 , 875 A. 2d 906 (2005) (citations omitted). | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Honda Motor Company, Ltd. v. Walter P. Coons
green
2 sentences2000Honda, Motor Co., Inc., 96 N.J. 419, 425 , 476 A.2d 763 (1984) (quoting State v. Burstein, 85 N.J. 394, 402-03, 427 A.2d 525 (1981)), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1123 , 105 S.Ct 808 , 83 L.Ed.2d 800 (1985).] Deciding which option to apply in a given case requires a consideration of several factors and a painstaking weighing of those factors. 1985A court generally has four approaches to take to civil retroactivity; it can (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whose operative facts arise after the new rule is announced; (2) apply the new rule to future cases and to the parties in the case announcing the new rule, while applying the old rule to all other pending and past litigation; (3) grant the new rule limited retroactivity, applying it to cases in (1) and (2) as well as to pending cases where the parties have not yet exhausted all avenues of direct review; and, finally, (4) give the new rule compl | 2 | 1985–2000 |
State v. Dock
green
2 sentences2012More recently, although in the criminal context, the Court has described these four options “[i]n descending order [based upon] the breadth of their effect, from the most narrow to the broadest,” providing a shorthand hierarchy that is structured in the following terms: “purely prospective,” “prospective,” “pipeline retroactivity,” and “full retroactivity.” State v. Dock, 205 N.J. 237, 258 , 15 A.3d 1 (2011). 2012More recently, although in the criminal context, the Court has described these four options “[i]n descending order [based upon] the breadth of their effect, from the most narrow to the broadest,” providing a shorthand hierarchy that is structured in the following terms: “purely prospective,” “prospective,” “pipeline retroactivity,” and “full retroactivity.” State v. Dock, 205 N.J. 237, 258 , 15 A.3d 1 (2011). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Fortin
green
2 sentences2007On the contrary, W.A. ’s imposition of a new approach to the established methods for securing voir dire presence constituted a break with past practice and thus a “new rule.” Where a new rule is concerned, four possible options are available: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whose operative facts arise after the new rule is announced; (2) apply the new rule to future cases and to the parties in the case announcing the new rule, while applying the old rule to all other pending and past litigation; (3) grant the new rule limited retroactivity, applying i 2007On the contrary, W.A. ’s imposition of a new approach to the established methods for securing voir dire presence constituted a break with past practice and thus a “new rule.” Where a new rule is concerned, four possible options are available: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whose operative facts arise after the new rule is announced; (2) apply the new rule to future cases and to the parties in the case announcing the new rule, while applying the old rule to all other pending and past litigation; (3) grant the new rule limited retroactivity, applying i | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Yanovsky
green
2 sentences2003In determining retroactive application of a new rule, four judicial options are available: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whose operative facts arise after the new rule is announced; (2) apply the new rule to future cases and to the parties in the case announcing the new rule, while applying the old rule to all other pending and past litigation; (3) grant the new rule limited retroactivity, applying it to cases in (1) and (2) as well as to pending cases where the parties have not yet exhausted all avenues of direct review [pipeline retroactivity]; an 2003In determining retroactive application of a new rule, four judicial options are available: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whose operative facts arise after the new rule is announced; (2) apply the new rule to future cases and to the parties in the case announcing the new rule, while applying the old rule to all other pending and past litigation; (3) grant the new rule limited retroactivity, applying it to cases in (1) and (2) as well as to pending cases where the parties have not yet exhausted all avenues of direct review [pipeline retroactivity]; an | 1 | 2003–2003 |
SASCO 1997 NI, LLC v. Zudkewich
green
2 sentences2003See also, Alderiso v. Medical Center, 167 N.J. 191 , 770 A. 2d 275 (2001); SASCO 1997 NI, LLC v. Zudkewich, 166 N.J. 579, 596 , 767 A. 2d 469 (2001). 2003See also, Alderiso v. Medical Center, 167 N.J. 191 , 770 A. 2d 275 (2001); SASCO 1997 NI, LLC v. Zudkewich, 166 N.J. 579, 596 , 767 A. 2d 469 (2001). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
State v. Brimage
green
2 sentences1999Nevertheless, it is well recognized that retroactivity is the traditional rule in such cases, State v. Brimage, 153 N.J. 1, 26 , 706 A. 2d 1096 (1998) (citing Coons, supra, 96 N.J. at 425 , 476 A. 2d 763 ), but such retroactivity is not unlimited. 1999Nevertheless, it is well recognized that retroactivity is the traditional rule in such cases, State v. Brimage, 153 N.J. 1, 26 , 706 A. 2d 1096 (1998) (citing Coons, supra, 96 N.J. at 425 , 476 A. 2d 763 ), but such retroactivity is not unlimited. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
NJ EL. LAW ENF. COM'N v. Citizens
green
2 sentences1996This Court has held that in determining whether to apply a new rule prospectively or retroactively a court may follow one of four options: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whose operative facts arise after the new rule is announced; (2) apply the new rule to future cases and to the parties in the case announcing the new rule, while applying the old rule to all other pending and past litigation; (3) grant the new rule limited retroactivity, applying it to cases in (1) and (2) as well as to pending cases where the parties have not yet exhausted all avenu 1996This Court has held that in determining whether to apply a new rule prospectively or retroactively a court may follow one of four options: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whose operative facts arise after the new rule is announced; (2) apply the new rule to future cases and to the parties in the case announcing the new rule, while applying the old rule to all other pending and past litigation; (3) grant the new rule limited retroactivity, applying it to cases in (1) and (2) as well as to pending cases where the parties have not yet exhausted all avenu | 1 | 1996–1996 |
State v. Hartley
green
2 sentences1990To the extent that the purpose of Hartley is to give “guidance to our own law-enforcement officials,” 103 N.J. at 285 , 511 A.2d 80 , and “avoid * * * confusion and conflict in future cases,” id. at 268 , 511 A.2d 80 , retroactive application is a non sequitur. 1990To the extent that the purpose of Hartley is to give “guidance to our own law-enforcement officials,” 103 N.J. at 285 , 511 A.2d 80 , and “avoid * * * confusion and conflict in future cases,” id. at 268 , 511 A.2d 80 , retroactive application is a non sequitur. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
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.