cited rule in New Jersey

2010We must determine whether, in the interests of justice, the cited error had the “ ‘clear capacity for producing an unjust result.’ ” Ibid, (quoting Fertile, supra, 169 N.J. at 493 , 779 A.2d 1078 ); R. 2:10-2. “ ‘Traditional rules of appellate review require substantial deference to a trial court’s evidentiary rulings.’ ” Benevenga v. Digregorio, 325 N.J.Super. 27, 32 , 737 A.2d 696 (App.Div. 1999) (quoting State v. Morton, 155 N.J. 383, 453 , 715 A.2d 228 (1998)), certif. denied, 163 N.J. 79 , 747 A.2d 287 (2000).

2010We must determine whether, in the interests of justice, the cited error had the “ ‘clear capacity for producing an unjust result.’ ” Ibid, (quoting Fertile, supra, 169 N.J. at 493 , 779 A.2d 1078 ); R. 2:10-2. “ ‘Traditional rules of appellate review require substantial deference to a trial court’s evidentiary rulings.’ ” Benevenga v. Digregorio, 325 N.J.Super. 27, 32 , 737 A.2d 696 (App.Div. 1999) (quoting State v. Morton, 155 N.J. 383, 453 , 715 A.2d 228 (1998)), certif. denied, 163 N.J. 79 , 747 A.2d 287 (2000).

2010We must determine whether, in the interests of justice, the cited error had the “ ‘clear capacity for producing an unjust result.’ ” Ibid, (quoting Fertile, supra, 169 N.J. at 493 , 779 A.2d 1078 ); R. 2:10-2. “ ‘Traditional rules of appellate review require substantial deference to a trial court’s evidentiary rulings.’ ” Benevenga v. Digregorio, 325 N.J.Super. 27, 32 , 737 A.2d 696 (App.Div. 1999) (quoting State v. Morton, 155 N.J. 383, 453 , 715 A.2d 228 (1998)), certif. denied, 163 N.J. 79 , 747 A.2d 287 (2000).

2010We must determine whether, in the interests of justice, the cited error had the “ ‘clear capacity for producing an unjust result.’ ” Ibid, (quoting Fertile, supra, 169 N.J. at 493 , 779 A.2d 1078 ); R. 2:10-2. “ ‘Traditional rules of appellate review require substantial deference to a trial court’s evidentiary rulings.’ ” Benevenga v. Digregorio, 325 N.J.Super. 27, 32 , 737 A.2d 696 (App.Div. 1999) (quoting State v. Morton, 155 N.J. 383, 453 , 715 A.2d 228 (1998)), certif. denied, 163 N.J. 79 , 747 A.2d 287 (2000).

2010We must determine whether, in the interests of justice, the cited error had the “ ‘clear capacity for producing an unjust result.’ ” Ibid, (quoting Fertile, supra, 169 N.J. at 493 , 779 A.2d 1078 ); R. 2:10-2. “ ‘Traditional rules of appellate review require substantial deference to a trial court’s evidentiary rulings.’ ” Benevenga v. Digregorio, 325 N.J.Super. 27, 32 , 737 A.2d 696 (App.Div. 1999) (quoting State v. Morton, 155 N.J. 383, 453 , 715 A.2d 228 (1998)), certif. denied, 163 N.J. 79 , 747 A.2d 287 (2000).

2010We must determine whether, in the interests of justice, the cited error had the “ ‘clear capacity for producing an unjust result.’ ” Ibid, (quoting Fertile, supra, 169 N.J. at 493 , 779 A.2d 1078 ); R. 2:10-2. “ ‘Traditional rules of appellate review require substantial deference to a trial court’s evidentiary rulings.’ ” Benevenga v. Digregorio, 325 N.J.Super. 27, 32 , 737 A.2d 696 (App.Div. 1999) (quoting State v. Morton, 155 N.J. 383, 453 , 715 A.2d 228 (1998)), certif. denied, 163 N.J. 79 , 747 A.2d 287 (2000).

2026In its accompanying decision, the court cited the standard enunciated by the New Jersey Supreme Court in A-0776-23 21 V.C. v. M.J.B., 163 N.J. 200 (2000), and our opinion in W.M. v. D.G., 467 N.J.

2018The Court cited to the analysis in a New York Court of Appeals opinion, People v. Nisonoff , 293 N.Y. 597 , 59 N.E.2d 420 , 421 (N.Y.

2018The Court cited to the analysis in a New York Court of Appeals opinion, People v. Nisonoff , 293 N.Y. 597 , 59 N.E.2d 420 , 421 (N.Y.

2017However, "[n]o matter how the language may vilify defendants, it will not be 'scandalous' within the meaning of the cited rule unless it is irrelevant." DeGroot, supra, 115 N.J.

2017However, "[n]o matter how the language may vilify defendants, it will not be 'scandalous' within the meaning of the cited rule unless it is irrelevant." DeGroot, supra, 115 N.J.

2013The Court cited such factors as the “suspect’s violent criminal history; an informant’s tip that weapons will be present; the risks to officers’ lives and safety; the size or layout of defendant’s property; whether persons other than defendant reside there; whether others involved in the crime are expected to be present; and the time of day.” Id. at 17 , 974 A.2d 1057 (citations omitted).

2013The Court cited such factors as the “suspect’s violent criminal history; an informant’s tip that weapons will be present; the risks to officers’ lives and safety; the size or layout of defendant’s property; whether persons other than defendant reside there; whether others involved in the crime are expected to be present; and the time of day.” Id. at 17 , 974 A.2d 1057 (citations omitted).

2010Moreover, the court in Walsh concluded that a predecessor to the rule, in importing the N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1 criteria, also imported the limitation that they apply only to offenses. 236 N.J.Super. at 156-57 , 564 A. 2d 901 .

2010Moreover, the court in Walsh concluded that a predecessor to the rule, in importing the N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1 criteria, also imported the limitation that they apply only to offenses. 236 N.J.Super. at 156-57 , 564 A. 2d 901 .

2010In support of its direction that courts articulate reasons for suspending licenses for motor vehicle violations, the Court cited the rule as indirect authority, noting that the rule "requir[es] [a] municipal court to state reasons for sentencing in disorderly-person- and petty-disorderly-person-offense cases." State v. Moran, supra, 202 N.J. at 329-30 , 997 A. 2d 210 .

2010In support of its direction that courts articulate reasons for suspending licenses for motor vehicle violations, the Court cited the rule as indirect authority, noting that the rule "requir[es] [a] municipal court to state reasons for sentencing in disorderly-person- and petty-disorderly-person-offense cases." State v. Moran, supra, 202 N.J. at 329-30 , 997 A. 2d 210 .

2003Bergen Builders [Inc. v. Horizon Developers, Inc., 44 N.J. 435 , 210 A.2d 65 (1965) ] . . . , an action on a promissory note secured by a mortgage, the Supreme Court observed that if the action was a foreclosure action, under then R. 4:55-7(c) “the judgment could not have included any provision for legal fees beyond those explicitly set forth in the cited rule.” 44 N.J. at 438 [ 210 A.2d 65 ], The Court acknowledged that the rule by its terms was confined to foreclosure actions and was not applicable in an action on a promissory note.

2003Bergen Builders [Inc. v. Horizon Developers, Inc., 44 N.J. 435 , 210 A.2d 65 (1965) ] . . . , an action on a promissory note secured by a mortgage, the Supreme Court observed that if the action was a foreclosure action, under then R. 4:55-7(c) “the judgment could not have included any provision for legal fees beyond those explicitly set forth in the cited rule.” 44 N.J. at 438 [ 210 A.2d 65 ], The Court acknowledged that the rule by its terms was confined to foreclosure actions and was not applicable in an action on a promissory note.

2002We do not find the language of R. 2:9-1(a) ambiguous in any way, as did Carlucci v. Carlucci, 265 N.J.Super. 333, 335-344 , 626 A. 2d 1124 (Ch.Div.1993).

2002We do not find the language of R. 2:9-1(a) ambiguous in any way, as did Carlucci v. Carlucci, 265 N.J.Super. 333, 335-344 , 626 A. 2d 1124 (Ch.Div.1993).

2001In Van Ness v. Borough of Deal, 78 N.J. 174, 180 , 393 A. 2d 571 (1978), the Court held that, under the doctrine, a municipality could not set aside part of a public beach for use by residents only.

2001In Van Ness v. Borough of Deal, 78 N.J. 174, 180 , 393 A. 2d 571 (1978), the Court held that, under the doctrine, a municipality could not set aside part of a public beach for use by residents only.

2001In Neptune, supra, 61 N.J. at 310 , 294 A. 2d 47 , the Court cited the doctrine in overturning an ordinance that restricted to residents the sale of beach badges, which restriction resulted in a higher fee for non-residents.

2001In Neptune, supra, 61 N.J. at 310 , 294 A. 2d 47 , the Court cited the doctrine in overturning an ordinance that restricted to residents the sale of beach badges, which restriction resulted in a higher fee for non-residents.

1988Considering the circumstances giving rise to defendant's offenses and the likelihood of his responsiveness to rehabilitation, precluding him from this alternative diversionary program and subjecting him to prosecution and conviction "would be counterproductive, ineffective or unwarranted," Leonardis I, 71 N.J. at 89 and clearly subversive of the underlying goals of PTI.

1985As the United States Supreme Court held in Hodges v. Snyder, 261 U.S. 600 , 43 S.Ct. 435 , 67 L.Ed. 819 (1923), the cited principle does not apply to a suit brought for the enforcement of a public right, which, even after it has been established by the judgment of the court, may be annulled by subsequent legislation, and should not be thereafter enforced; although, in so far as a private right has been incidentially established by such judgment, as for special damages to the plaintiff, or for his costs, it may not be thus taken away.

1985As the United States Supreme Court held in Hodges v. Snyder, 261 U.S. 600 , 43 S.Ct. 435 , 67 L.Ed. 819 (1923), the cited principle does not apply to a suit brought for the enforcement of a public right, which, even after it has been established by the judgment of the court, may be annulled by subsequent legislation, and should not be thereafter enforced; although, in so far as a private right has been incidentially established by such judgment, as for special damages to the plaintiff, or for his costs, it may not be thus taken away.

1974State v. Knight, 63 N.J. 187 (1973).

1972NOTES [1] While the cited clause appeared in the policy involved in Selected Risks Insurance Co. v. Zullo, supra , the court there was not called upon to interpret it.

1963Defendant's reliance on State v. Minter, 55 N.J.

1958Honigfeld v. Byrnes, 14 N.J. 600 (1954); Swede v. City of Clifton, 22 N.J. 303, 315 (1956); Jorgensen v. Pennsylvania R.R.

1953The test still remains, was the statement or confession voluntarily made?" State v. Bunk, 4 N.J. 461, 472 (1950); State v. Pierce, supra ; State v. Schmieder, 5 N.J. 40 (1950); State v. Miller, supra ; In re Domako, 20 N.J.