31 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2026 16 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. Cummingsgreen2 sentences2025A-0256-23 16 Further, "[a]ny factual assertion that provides the predicate for a claim of relief must be made by an affidavit or certification pursuant to Rule 1:4-4 and based upon personal knowledge of the declarant before the court may grant an evidentiary hearing." R. 3:22-10(c); see State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. 2025See R. 3:22- 10(c) (stating that "[a]ny factual assertion that provides the predicate for a claim A-3998-22 17 of relief must be made by an affidavit or certification . . . and based upon personal knowledge of the declarant before the court may grant an evidentiary hearing"); State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. | 11 | 12 |
State v. Harrisgreen2 sentences2022As a general proposition, we defer to a PCR court's factual findings "when supported by adequate, substantial and credible evidence." State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 415 (2004) (quoting Toll Bros, Inc. v. Twp. of W. 2020A-1446-18T4 16 As a general proposition, we defer to a PCR court's factual findings "when supported by adequate, substantial and credible evidence." State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 415 (2004) (quoting Toll Bros, Inc. v. Twp. of W. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Petrozelligreen2 sentences2020See State v. Petrozelli, 351 N.J. 2017See State v. Petrozelli, 351 N.J. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Oscar Porter (069223)green2 sentences2024Defendants "must allege specific facts and evidence supporting [their] allegations," State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 355 (2013), and "[a]ny factual assertion that provides the predicate for a claim of relief must be made by an affidavit or certification pursuant to Rule 1:4-4 and based upon personal knowledge of the declarant before the court may grant an evidentiary hearing. " R. 3:22-10(c); see also State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. 2021See State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 355 (2013) (Court Rules require "[a]ny factual assertion that provides the predicate for a claim of relief" to be supported an "affidavit or certification pursuant to Rule 1:4-4."). 11 A-5659-18 Absent such evidence, we are satisfied that defendant's trial counsel's decision to forego a competency hearing does not fall below an objective standard of reasonableness, as an attorney's failure to raise a losing argument does not amount to deficient performance. | 2 | 4 |
State v. Allengreen1 sentence2026However, "[e]ven a suspicious or questionable affidavit supporting a PCR petition 'must A-2079-24 10 be tested for credibility and cannot be summarily rejected.'" Porter, 216 N.J. at 355 (quoting State v. Allen, 398 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Worlockgreen1 sentence2021State v. Worlock, 117 N.J. 596, 625 (1990) ("The failure to raise unsuccessful legal arguments does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Coylegreen1 sentence2021In State v. Coyle, the Court found no error in the trial court's decision not to instruct the jury on imperfect self-defense because the "trial court's instructions on the capital offense properly encompassed only purposeful murder and the lesser-included offenses of aggravated manslaughter, reckless manslaughter, and passion/provocation manslaughter." 119 N.J. 194, 228 (1990). | 1 | 1 |
Claypotch v. Heller, Inc.green1 sentence2018A requirement that "an affidavit supporting a motion must be based on 'personal knowledge' is not satisfied by a statement 'based merely on 'information and belief.'" Claypotch v. Heller, Inc., 360 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Sidman v. Director, Division of Taxationgreen1 sentence2001"The predicate for this principle is that the existence of government depends on tax revenues; without such revenues government cannot function." Metpath, Inc. v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, 96 N.J. 147, 152 , 474 A. 2d 1065 (1984). [ Sidman v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 19 N.J.Tax 484, 488-89 (App.Div. 2001), certif. denied, 170 N.J. 387 , 788 A. 2d 772 (2001).] We thus rejected the concept of deductibility premised on the theory that a subchapter S corporation, like a partnership, is a "pass through" entity. | 1 | 1 |
Watt v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Franklingreen2 sentences1999See Watt v. Mayor and Council, Borough of Franklin, 21 N.J. 274, 277 , 121 A.2d 499 (1956). 1999See Watt v. Mayor and Council, Borough of Franklin, 21 N.J. 274, 277 , 121 A.2d 499 (1956). | 1 | 1 |
Daniel v. STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONgreen2 sentences1994Super. 563, 598 , 571 A. 2d 1329 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 122 N.J. 325 , 585 A. 2d 343 (1990) ("[S]ubsection c and d do not require `high-level planning decisions' as the predicate for immunity as does subsection a....") (citations omitted); Longo v. Santoro, 195 N.J. 1994Super. 563, 598 , 571 A. 2d 1329 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 122 N.J. 325 , 585 A. 2d 343 (1990) ("[S]ubsection c and d do not require `high-level planning decisions' as the predicate for immunity as does subsection a....") (citations omitted); Longo v. Santoro, 195 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
South Jersey Properties, Inc. v. Borough of Shrewsburygreen1 sentence1994Super. 507, 515 , 480 A. 2d 934 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 99 N.J. 210 , 491 A. 2d 706 (1984) ("Subsection a of N.J.S.A. 59:2-3 has been interpreted as only granting immunity where the asserted discretionary decisions are `actual, high-level policymaking decisions' or `basic policy determinations.'") (citation omitted). [5] Once a public employee decides to "act" it must be in accordance with N.J.S.A. 59:3-3, which provides in part: A public employee is not liable if he acts in good faith in the execution or enforcement of any law. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rhodiegreen1 sentence1994Super. 507, 515 , 480 A. 2d 934 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 99 N.J. 210 , 491 A. 2d 706 (1984) ("Subsection a of N.J.S.A. 59:2-3 has been interpreted as only granting immunity where the asserted discretionary decisions are `actual, high-level policymaking decisions' or `basic policy determinations.'") (citation omitted). [5] Once a public employee decides to "act" it must be in accordance with N.J.S.A. 59:3-3, which provides in part: A public employee is not liable if he acts in good faith in the execution or enforcement of any law. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bowensgreen2 sentences1989N.J.S.A. 2C:ll-4a and 4b; see id. at 633 . 1989N.J.S.A. 2C:11-4a and 4b; see id. at 633 . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Marshall
green
2 sentences2016To establish a prima facie case, defendant must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that his or her claim, viewing the facts alleged in the light most favorable to the defendant, will ultimately succeed on the merits. (c) Any factual assertion that provides the predicate for a claim of relief must be made by an affidavit or certification pursuant to Rule 1:4-4 and based upon personal knowledge of the declarant before the court may grant an evidentiary healing. (d) The scope of an evidentiary healing shall be limited to the issue of whether the defendant was improperly convicted. (e) A court sh 2016To establish a prima facie case, defendant must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that his or her claim, viewing the facts alleged in the light most favorable to the defendant, will ultimately succeed on the merits. (c) Any factual assertion that provides the predicate for a claim of relief must be made by an affidavit or certification pursuant to Rule 1:4-4 and based upon personal knowledge of the declarant before the court may grant an evidentiary healing. (d) The scope of an evidentiary healing shall be limited to the issue of whether the defendant was improperly convicted. (e) A court sh | 3 | 2013–2016 |
LaFountain v. Caruso
green
2 sentences2013In evaluating whether a prima facie claim has been asserted, [a]ny factual assertion that provides the predicate for a claim of relief must be made by an affidavit or certification pursuant to Rule 1:4-4 and based upon personal knowledge of the declarant before the Court may grant an evidentiary hearing. [R. 3:22 — 10(c).] However, a defendant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing if the “allegations are too vague, conclusory, or speculative to warrant an evidentiary hearing[.]” State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 158 , 690 A.2d 1 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 850 , 118 S.Ct. 140 , 139 L.Ed.2d 88 ( 2013In evaluating whether a prima facie claim has been asserted, [a]ny factual assertion that provides the predicate for a claim of relief must be made by an affidavit or certification pursuant to Rule 1:4-4 and based upon personal knowledge of the declarant before the Court may grant an evidentiary hearing. [R. 3:22-10(c).] However, a defendant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing if the “allegations are too vague, conclusory, or speculative to warrant an evidentiary hearing[.]” State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 158 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 850 , 118 S. Ct. 140 , 139 L. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Bailey v. United States
green
2 sentences2013In evaluating whether a prima facie claim has been asserted, [a]ny factual assertion that provides the predicate for a claim of relief must be made by an affidavit or certification pursuant to Rule 1:4-4 and based upon personal knowledge of the declarant before the Court may grant an evidentiary hearing. [R. 3:22 — 10(c).] However, a defendant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing if the “allegations are too vague, conclusory, or speculative to warrant an evidentiary hearing[.]” State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 158 , 690 A.2d 1 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 850 , 118 S.Ct. 140 , 139 L.Ed.2d 88 ( 2013In evaluating whether a prima facie claim has been asserted, [a]ny factual assertion that provides the predicate for a claim of relief must be made by an affidavit or certification pursuant to Rule 1:4-4 and based upon personal knowledge of the declarant before the Court may grant an evidentiary hearing. [R. 3:22-10(c).] However, a defendant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing if the “allegations are too vague, conclusory, or speculative to warrant an evidentiary hearing[.]” State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89, 158 , cert. denied, 522 U.S. 850 , 118 S. Ct. 140 , 139 L. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Metpath, Inc. v. Director, Division of Taxation
green
2 sentences2001"The predicate for this principle is that the existence of government depends on tax revenues; without such revenues government cannot function." Metpath, Inc. v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, 96 N.J. 147, 152 , 474 A. 2d 1065 (1984). [ Sidman v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 19 N.J.Tax 484, 488-89 (App.Div. 2001), certif. denied, 170 N.J. 387 , 788 A. 2d 772 (2001).] We thus rejected the concept of deductibility premised on the theory that a subchapter S corporation, like a partnership, is a "pass through" entity. 2001"The predicate for this principle is that the existence of government depends on tax revenues; without such revenues government cannot function." Metpath, Inc. v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, 96 N.J. 147, 152 , 474 A. 2d 1065 (1984). [ Sidman v. Director, Div. of Taxation, 19 N.J.Tax 484, 488-89 (App.Div. 2001), certif. denied, 170 N.J. 387 , 788 A. 2d 772 (2001).] We thus rejected the concept of deductibility premised on the theory that a subchapter S corporation, like a partnership, is a "pass through" entity. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Longo v. Santoro
green
2 sentences1994Super. 563, 598 , 571 A. 2d 1329 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 122 N.J. 325 , 585 A. 2d 343 (1990) ("[S]ubsection c and d do not require `high-level planning decisions' as the predicate for immunity as does subsection a....") (citations omitted); Longo v. Santoro, 195 N.J. 1990Contrary to plaintiff's assertion, subsection c and d do not require "high-level planning decisions" as the predicate for immunity as does subsection a, which immunizes a public entity for an injury resulting from the "exercise of judgment or discretion...." See Brown v. Brown, 86 N.J. 565, 577 , 432 A. 2d 493 (1981); Longo v. Santoro, 195 N.J. | 2 | 1990–1994 |
State v. Pitts
green
1 sentence2021The predicate for such an instruction, when it is based on evidence of imperfect self-defense, is that such evidence either negates the mental state required for murder, or demonstrates acts of provocation on the part of the victim to an extent sufficient to afford the jury a rational basis for convicting the defendant of one of the Code's forms of manslaughter. [Pitts, 116 N.J. at 605-06 .] But Defendant's reliance on Pitts is misplaced as he testified that he did not shoot and kill the victim, thereby negating any rational basis for a charge of imperfect self-defense. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Northern
green
2 sentences2016To establish a prima facie case, defendant must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that his or her claim, viewing the facts alleged in the light most favorable to the defendant, will ultimately succeed on the merits. (c) Any factual assertion that provides the predicate for a claim of relief must be made by an affidavit or certification pursuant to Rule 1:4-4 and based upon personal knowledge of the declarant before the court may grant an evidentiary healing. (d) The scope of an evidentiary healing shall be limited to the issue of whether the defendant was improperly convicted. (e) A court sh 2016To establish a prima facie case, defendant must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that his or her claim, viewing the facts alleged in the light most favorable to the defendant, will ultimately succeed on the merits. (c) Any factual assertion that provides the predicate for a claim of relief must be made by an affidavit or certification pursuant to Rule 1:4-4 and based upon personal knowledge of the declarant before the court may grant an evidentiary healing. (d) The scope of an evidentiary healing shall be limited to the issue of whether the defendant was improperly convicted. (e) A court sh | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Flores
green
2 sentences2016To establish a prima facie case, defendant must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that his or her claim, viewing the facts alleged in the light most favorable to the defendant, will ultimately succeed on the merits. (c) Any factual assertion that provides the predicate for a claim of relief must be made by an affidavit or certification pursuant to Rule 1:4-4 and based upon personal knowledge of the declarant before the court may grant an evidentiary healing. (d) The scope of an evidentiary healing shall be limited to the issue of whether the defendant was improperly convicted. (e) A court sh 2016To establish a prima facie case, defendant must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood that his or her claim, viewing the facts alleged in the light most favorable to the defendant, will ultimately succeed on the merits. (c) Any factual assertion that provides the predicate for a claim of relief must be made by an affidavit or certification pursuant to Rule 1:4-4 and based upon personal knowledge of the declarant before the court may grant an evidentiary healing. (d) The scope of an evidentiary healing shall be limited to the issue of whether the defendant was improperly convicted. (e) A court sh | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Daniel v. State, Dept. of Transp.
green
1 sentence1994Super. 563, 598 , 571 A. 2d 1329 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 122 N.J. 325 , 585 A. 2d 343 (1990) ("[S]ubsection c and d do not require `high-level planning decisions' as the predicate for immunity as does subsection a....") (citations omitted); Longo v. Santoro, 195 N.J. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Brown v. Brown
green
2 sentences1990Contrary to plaintiff's assertion, subsection c and d do not require "high-level planning decisions" as the predicate for immunity as does subsection a, which immunizes a public entity for an injury resulting from the "exercise of judgment or discretion...." See Brown v. Brown, 86 N.J. 565, 577 , 432 A. 2d 493 (1981); Longo v. Santoro, 195 N.J. 1990Contrary to plaintiff's assertion, subsection c and d do not require "high-level planning decisions" as the predicate for immunity as does subsection a, which immunizes a public entity for an injury resulting from the "exercise of judgment or discretion...." See Brown v. Brown, 86 N.J. 565, 577 , 432 A. 2d 493 (1981); Longo v. Santoro, 195 N.J. | 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.