30 New Jersey opinions name it 3 courts 1878–2024 7 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. Wadegreen2 sentences2022Super. 209, 217 (App. Div. 1991) (citing State v. Wade, 99 N.J. 1991State v. Wade, 99 N.J. | 2 | 3 |
New Jersey Association on Correction v. Langreen2 sentences2001The panel observed that because Article IX, Paragraph 5 does not even impose a single object standard upon proposed amendments, which is easily satisfied by this amendment, see New *10 Jersey Association on Correction v. Lan, 80 N.J. 199 , 403 A.2d 437 (1979), the proposed amendment stands as formulated by the Legislature and may be submitted to the people for their vote. [/hid] The parties also disagree about the meaning of Article IX, Paragraph 5, although they concur with the Appellate Division’s conclusion that the single object language found elsewhere in the Constitution is not equivalen 2001The panel observed that because Article IX, Paragraph 5 does not even impose a single object standard upon proposed amendments, which is easily satisfied by this amendment, see New *10 Jersey Association on Correction v. Lan, 80 N.J. 199 , 403 A.2d 437 (1979), the proposed amendment stands as formulated by the Legislature and may be submitted to the people for their vote. [/hid] The parties also disagree about the meaning of Article IX, Paragraph 5, although they concur with the Appellate Division’s conclusion that the single object language found elsewhere in the Constitution is not equivalen | 1 | 3 |
State v. Gomezgreen2 sentences2022"The object of the rule is to permit the trier of the facts to have laid before it all that was said at the same time upon the same subject matter." State v. Gomez, 246 N.J. 1992We then considered defendant's claim that the doctrine of testimonial completeness required its admission observing: "The object of the rule is to permit the trier of the facts to have laid before it all that was said at the same time upon the same subject matter." Id. at 217 , 587 A. 2d 272 . | 1 | 2 |
City of Newark v. Mount Pleasant Cemetery Co.green2 sentences2000The constitutional purpose is to protect against: [T]he extreme, the “pernicious,” the incongruous, Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , 50 N.W. 923, 924 (Sup.Ct,1894[1]); Newark v. Mount Pleasant Cemetery Co., 58 N.J.L. 168, 171 [ 33 A. 396 ] (E. & A. 1895); the manifestly repugnant, Behnke [v. New Jersey Highway Authority, 13 N.J. 14, 25 , 97 A.2d 647 (1953)]; the palpable contravention of the constitutional command, Jersey City v. Martin, 126 N.J.L. 353, 363 [ 19 A.2d 40 ] (E. & A.1941); Public Serv. 1978As observed in Newark v. Mount Pleasant Cemetery Co., 58 N.J.L. 168 (E. & A. 1895): The evil intended to be guarded against [by the single object rule] was not the inclusion in one act of more than a single matter, but the inclusion therein of matters not properly related among themselves. | 1 | 2 |
In Re the Estate of Herrmanngreen1 sentence2024Exceptions which state no reason for criticism of the whole report, specify no items of which the exceptant complains, and no particulars wherein the master is alleged to have erred, cannot be entertained." [In re Est. of Herrmann, 127 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Johnson v. Harrisongreen2 sentences2000The constitutional purpose is to protect against: [T]he extreme, the “pernicious,” the incongruous, Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , 50 N.W. 923, 924 (Sup.Ct,1894[1]); Newark v. Mount Pleasant Cemetery Co., 58 N.J.L. 168, 171 [ 33 A. 396 ] (E. & A. 1895); the manifestly repugnant, Behnke [v. New Jersey Highway Authority, 13 N.J. 14, 25 , 97 A.2d 647 (1953)]; the palpable contravention of the constitutional command, Jersey City v. Martin, 126 N.J.L. 353, 363 [ 19 A.2d 40 ] (E. & A.1941); Public Serv. 2000The constitutional purpose is to protect against: [T]he extreme, the “pernicious,” the incongruous, Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , 50 N.W. 923, 924 (Sup.Ct,1894[1]); Newark v. Mount Pleasant Cemetery Co., 58 N.J.L. 168, 171 [ 33 A. 396 ] (E. & A. 1895); the manifestly repugnant, Behnke [v. New Jersey Highway Authority, 13 N.J. 14, 25 , 97 A.2d 647 (1953)]; the palpable contravention of the constitutional command, Jersey City v. Martin, 126 N.J.L. 353, 363 [ 19 A.2d 40 ] (E. & A.1941); Public Serv. | 1 | 1 |
City of Jersey City v. Martingreen2 sentences2000The constitutional purpose is to protect against: [T]he extreme, the “pernicious,” the incongruous, Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , 50 N.W. 923, 924 (Sup.Ct,1894[1]); Newark v. Mount Pleasant Cemetery Co., 58 N.J.L. 168, 171 [ 33 A. 396 ] (E. & A. 1895); the manifestly repugnant, Behnke [v. New Jersey Highway Authority, 13 N.J. 14, 25 , 97 A.2d 647 (1953)]; the palpable contravention of the constitutional command, Jersey City v. Martin, 126 N.J.L. 353, 363 [ 19 A.2d 40 ] (E. & A.1941); Public Serv. 2000The constitutional purpose is to protect against: [T]he extreme, the “pernicious,” the incongruous, Johnson v. Harrison, 47 Minn. 575 , 50 N.W. 923, 924 (Sup.Ct,1894[1]); Newark v. Mount Pleasant Cemetery Co., 58 N.J.L. 168, 171 [ 33 A. 396 ] (E. & A. 1895); the manifestly repugnant, Behnke [v. New Jersey Highway Authority, 13 N.J. 14, 25 , 97 A.2d 647 (1953)]; the palpable contravention of the constitutional command, Jersey City v. Martin, 126 N.J.L. 353, 363 [ 19 A.2d 40 ] (E. & A.1941); Public Serv. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Wadegreen1 sentence1995See United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463, 474 , 100 S.Ct. 1244, 1251 , 63 L.Ed. 2d 537, 547-548 (1980); Wade, supra, 388 U.S. at 240, 87 S.Ct. at 1939, 18 L.Ed. 2d at 1149 (holding that clear and convincing evidence must be produced that the in court identification is based on the witness's independent opportunity to view the defendant at the time of the crime, and not because of the tainted identification procedures). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Crewsgreen2 sentences1995See United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463, 474 , 100 S.Ct. 1244, 1251 , 63 L.Ed. 2d 537, 547-548 (1980); Wade, supra, 388 U.S. at 240, 87 S.Ct. at 1939, 18 L.Ed. 2d at 1149 (holding that clear and convincing evidence must be produced that the in court identification is based on the witness's independent opportunity to view the defendant at the time of the crime, and not because of the tainted identification procedures). 1995See United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463, 474 , 100 S.Ct. 1244, 1251 , 63 L.Ed. 2d 537, 547-548 (1980); Wade, supra, 388 U.S. at 240, 87 S.Ct. at 1939, 18 L.Ed. 2d at 1149 (holding that clear and convincing evidence must be produced that the in court identification is based on the witness's independent opportunity to view the defendant at the time of the crime, and not because of the tainted identification procedures). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Stronggreen2 sentences1993The privilege, in effect, mandates neutralizing the prosecutorial use of compelled testimony. [ Id. at 590 , 542 A. 2d 866 .] A grant of immunity frequently has been the mechanism used to neutralize the prosecutorial use of compelled testimony or a compelled testimonial act. 1993The privilege, in effect, mandates neutralizing the prosecutorial use of compelled testimony. [ Id. at 590 , 542 A. 2d 866 .] A grant of immunity frequently has been the mechanism used to neutralize the prosecutorial use of compelled testimony or a compelled testimonial act. | 1 | 1 |
Rea v. City of LaFayettegreen2 sentences1978See, e.g., Rea v. City of La Fayette, 130 Ga. 771 , 61 S.E. 707 (Sup. Ct. 1908); Hart v. Bd. of Ed., 299 Mo. 36 , 252 S.W. 441 (Sup. Ct. 1923); In re Validation Bonds, City of Moss Point, 170 Miss. 886 , 156 So. 516 (Sup. Ct. 1934); Annotation, "Validity of submission of proposition to voters at bond election as affected by inclusion of several structures or units," 4 A.L.R. 2d 617 (1949). *123 We recognize that appropriate compliance with the single object rule will not obviate difficult voter choices. 1978See, e.g., Rea v. City of La Fayette, 130 Ga. 771 , 61 S.E. 707 (Sup. Ct. 1908); Hart v. Bd. of Ed., 299 Mo. 36 , 252 S.W. 441 (Sup. Ct. 1923); In re Validation Bonds, City of Moss Point, 170 Miss. 886 , 156 So. 516 (Sup. Ct. 1934); Annotation, "Validity of submission of proposition to voters at bond election as affected by inclusion of several structures or units," 4 A.L.R. 2d 617 (1949). *123 We recognize that appropriate compliance with the single object rule will not obviate difficult voter choices. | 1 | 1 |
Cobb v. City of Maldengreen1 sentence1978One of the earliest opinions examining the type of immunity that was available to local legislators at common law is that of Judge Magruder in Cobb v. City of Malden, 202 F. 2d 701, 706-707 (1 Cir.1953) (Magruder, C.J., concurring). | 1 | 1 |
Ajamian v. Schlangergreen1 sentence1971Ajamian v. Schlanger, 14 N.J. 483, 485 (1954); N.J. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2021Id. at 688 . 2021Id. at 688 . | 6 | 2020–2021 |
Union Carbide Corp. v. Litton Prec. Prods., Inc.
green
2 sentences2003The main object of this rule is "to protect a litigant where a termination of the proceedings without prejudice will place him in the probable position of having to defend, at additional expense, another action based upon similar charges at another time." Union Carbide Corp. v. Litton Precision Prods., Inc., 94 N.J.Super. 315, 317 , 228 A. 2d 99 (Ch.Div.1967). 2003The main object of this rule is "to protect a litigant where a termination of the proceedings without prejudice will place him in the probable position of having to defend, at additional expense, another action based upon similar charges at another time." Union Carbide Corp. v. Litton Precision Prods., Inc., 94 N.J.Super. 315, 317 , 228 A. 2d 99 (Ch.Div.1967). | 2 | 2003–2003 |
Behnke v. New Jersey Highway Authority
green
2 sentences2001The single object rule, we stated, is designed to protect against the extreme, the ‘pernicious,’ the incongruous; the manifestly repugnant; the palpable contravention of the constitutional command; fraud or overreaching or misleading of the people; the inadvertent; the ‘discordant;’ or ‘the intermixing in one and the same act [of] such things as have no proper relation to each other;’ or matters which are ‘uncertain, misleading or deceptive.’ [ Lan, supra, 80 N.J. at 212 , 403 A.2d 437 (citations omitted).] See also Behnke v. New Jersey Highway Auth., 13 N.J. 14, 32 , 97 A.2d 647 (1953) (stati 2001The single object rule, we stated, is designed to protect against the extreme, the ‘pernicious,’ the incongruous; the manifestly repugnant; the palpable contravention of the constitutional command; fraud or overreaching or misleading of the people; the inadvertent; the ‘discordant;’ or ‘the intermixing in one and the same act [of] such things as have no proper relation to each other;’ or matters which are ‘uncertain, misleading or deceptive.’ [ Lan, supra, 80 N.J. at 212 , 403 A.2d 437 (citations omitted).] See also Behnke v. New Jersey Highway Auth., 13 N.J. 14, 32 , 97 A.2d 647 (1953) (stati | 2 | 2000–2001 |
Hale v. Henkel
green
2 sentences1968Acknowledging that “abuses of this power may be imagined, as if the object of the inquiry were merely to pry into the details of domestic or business life,” the Court refused to deny power on that account, saying that “were such abuses called to the attention of the court, it would doubtless be alert to repress them.” 201 U. S., at 65 , 26 S. Ct., at 375 , 50 L. 1968Acknowledging that “abuses of this power may be imagined, as if the object of the inquiry were merely to pry into the details of domestic or business life,” the Court refused to deny power on that account, saying that “were such abuses called to the attention of the court, it would doubtless be alert to repress them.” 201 U. S., at 65 , 26 S. Ct., at 375 , 50 L. | 2 | 1968–1968 |
BTD-1996, NPC 1 L.L.C. v. 350 Warren L.P.
green
2 sentences2001The majority rejected the trial court’s view that the single object clause of the constitution rendered the statute unenforceable, observing that “ ‘[t]he constitutional provision is complied with when the title gives notice to the Legislature and the public of the general purpose of the act.’ ” 333 N.J.Super. at 483 , 755 A.2d 1236 (quoting General Public Loan Corp. v. Director of Div. of Taxation, 13 N.J. 393, 403 , 99 A.2d 796 (1953)). 2001The majority rejected the trial court’s view that the single object clause of the constitution rendered the statute unenforceable, observing that “ ‘[t]he constitutional provision is complied with when the title gives notice to the Legislature and the public of the general purpose of the act.’ ” 333 N.J.Super. at 483 , 755 A.2d 1236 (quoting General Public Loan Corp. v. Director of Div. of Taxation, 13 N.J. 393, 403 , 99 A.2d 796 (1953)). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
General Public Loan Corp. v. Director of the Division of Taxation
green
2 sentences2001The majority rejected the trial court’s view that the single object clause of the constitution rendered the statute unenforceable, observing that “ ‘[t]he constitutional provision is complied with when the title gives notice to the Legislature and the public of the general purpose of the act.’ ” 333 N.J.Super. at 483 , 755 A.2d 1236 (quoting General Public Loan Corp. v. Director of Div. of Taxation, 13 N.J. 393, 403 , 99 A.2d 796 (1953)). 2001The majority rejected the trial court’s view that the single object clause of the constitution rendered the statute unenforceable, observing that “ ‘[t]he constitutional provision is complied with when the title gives notice to the Legislature and the public of the general purpose of the act.’ ” 333 N.J.Super. at 483 , 755 A.2d 1236 (quoting General Public Loan Corp. v. Director of Div. of Taxation, 13 N.J. 393, 403 , 99 A.2d 796 (1953)). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Abrams
green
2 sentences1992We employed the analytical framework outlined by Justice Clifford in his concurring and dissenting opinion in State v. Abrams, 72 N.J. 342 , 370 A. 2d 852 (1977). 1992We employed the analytical framework outlined by Justice Clifford in his concurring and dissenting opinion in State v. Abrams, 72 N.J. 342 , 370 A. 2d 852 (1977). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
State v. Williams
green
1 sentence1991In State v. Williams, 239 N.J. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Paul v. Virginia
red
2 sentences1980In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 , 19 L.Ed. 357 (1869), Justice Field explained the purpose of the Clause in the following manner: It was undoubtedly the object of the clause in question to place the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens of other States, so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those States are concerned. 1980In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 , 19 L.Ed. 357 (1869), Justice Field explained the purpose of the Clause in the following manner: It was undoubtedly the object of the clause in question to place the citizens of each State upon the same footing with citizens of other States, so far as the advantages resulting from citizenship in those States are concerned. | 1 | 1980–1980 |
In Re Bonds, City of Moss Point
green
2 sentences1978See, e.g., Rea v. City of La Fayette, 130 Ga. 771 , 61 S.E. 707 (Sup. Ct. 1908); Hart v. Bd. of Ed., 299 Mo. 36 , 252 S.W. 441 (Sup. Ct. 1923); In re Validation Bonds, City of Moss Point, 170 Miss. 886 , 156 So. 516 (Sup. Ct. 1934); Annotation, "Validity of submission of proposition to voters at bond election as affected by inclusion of several structures or units," 4 A.L.R. 2d 617 (1949). *123 We recognize that appropriate compliance with the single object rule will not obviate difficult voter choices. 1978See, e.g., Rea v. City of La Fayette, 130 Ga. 771 , 61 S.E. 707 (Sup. Ct. 1908); Hart v. Bd. of Ed., 299 Mo. 36 , 252 S.W. 441 (Sup. Ct. 1923); In re Validation Bonds, City of Moss Point, 170 Miss. 886 , 156 So. 516 (Sup. Ct. 1934); Annotation, "Validity of submission of proposition to voters at bond election as affected by inclusion of several structures or units," 4 A.L.R. 2d 617 (1949). *123 We recognize that appropriate compliance with the single object rule will not obviate difficult voter choices. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Hart v. Board of Education of Nevada School District
green
2 sentences1978See, e.g., Rea v. City of La Fayette, 130 Ga. 771 , 61 S.E. 707 (Sup. Ct. 1908); Hart v. Bd. of Ed., 299 Mo. 36 , 252 S.W. 441 (Sup. Ct. 1923); In re Validation Bonds, City of Moss Point, 170 Miss. 886 , 156 So. 516 (Sup. Ct. 1934); Annotation, "Validity of submission of proposition to voters at bond election as affected by inclusion of several structures or units," 4 A.L.R. 2d 617 (1949). *123 We recognize that appropriate compliance with the single object rule will not obviate difficult voter choices. 1978See, e.g., Rea v. City of La Fayette, 130 Ga. 771 , 61 S.E. 707 (Sup. Ct. 1908); Hart v. Bd. of Ed., 299 Mo. 36 , 252 S.W. 441 (Sup. Ct. 1923); In re Validation Bonds, City of Moss Point, 170 Miss. 886 , 156 So. 516 (Sup. Ct. 1934); Annotation, "Validity of submission of proposition to voters at bond election as affected by inclusion of several structures or units," 4 A.L.R. 2d 617 (1949). *123 We recognize that appropriate compliance with the single object rule will not obviate difficult voter choices. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Schnoerr v. Miller
green
1 sentence1978To comply with the statute, the voter must be informed as to what kind of a structure is to be erected. [ 206 N.E. 2d at 904 ] *126 The single object rule is not complied with by an abject failure to specify any object at all. | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Blair v. United States
green
2 sentences1968The subject was considered again in Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273 , 39 S.Ct. 468 , 63 L.Ed. 979 (1919), which involved contempt convictions for refusing to testify before a grand jury. 1968The subject was considered again in Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273 , 39 S.Ct. 468 , 63 L.Ed. 979 (1919), which involved contempt convictions for refusing to testify before a grand jury. | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Booraem v. North Hudson County Railway Co.
green
1 sentence1956Co., 40 N.J. | 1 | 1956–1956 |
Krueger v. Armitage
neutral
1 sentence1941The purpose was to notify the complainant only of the general subject-matter of the argument." Krueger v. Armitage, 58 N.J. | 1 | 1941–1941 |
Commercial Union Assurance Co. v. Scammon
neutral
1 sentence1936Commercial Union Assurance Co. v. Scammon, 126 Ill. 355 ; 9 Am. | 1 | 1936–1936 |
Sullivan v. Judah & Weed
neutral
1 sentence1878There is quite a crowd of cases of this character which I will cite without other comment than the remark that they hold that, in the language of one of them, “ the object of the rule was to afford to the party enjoined full and ample security for all damages he might sustain by reason of the allowance of an injunction against him, without giving him an opportunity to be heard in opposition to such allowance.” Leavitt v. Dabney, 2 Sween. 617; Cayuga Bridge Co. v. Magee, 2 Paige 116 ; Sullivan v. Judah, 4 Paige 444 ; Carroll v. Sand, 10 Paige 298 ; Edwards v. Bodine, 11 Paige 223 ; Loveland v. | 1 | 1878–1878 |
| Carroll v. Sand neutral | 1 | 1878–1878 |
| Edwards v. Bodine neutral | 1 | 1878–1878 |
| Cayuga Bridge Co. v. Magee neutral | 1 | 1878–1878 |
| Lawton v. . Green green | 1 | 1878–1878 |
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.