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.
29 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 2011–2026 13 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lombardi v. Massogreen2 sentences2024The law of the case doctrine "is a non-binding rule intended to 'prevent re[-]litigation of a previously resolved issue.'" Lombardi v. Masso, 207 N.J. 517, 538 (2011) (quoting In re Est. of Stockdale, 196 N.J. 275, 311 (2008)). 2021"It is a non-binding rule intended to 'prevent relitigation of a previously resolved issue.'" Id. at 538 (quoting In re Estate of Stockdale, 196 N.J. 275, 311 (2008)). | 10 | 18 |
In Re the Estate of Stockdalegreen2 sentences2024The law of the case doctrine "is a non-binding rule intended to 'prevent re[-]litigation of a previously resolved issue.'" Lombardi v. Masso, 207 N.J. 517, 538 (2011) (quoting In re Est. of Stockdale, 196 N.J. 275, 311 (2008)). 2021"It is a non-binding rule intended to 'prevent relitigation of a previously resolved issue.'" Id. at 538 (quoting In re Estate of Stockdale, 196 N.J. 275, 311 (2008)). | 10 | 14 |
State v. K.P.S. and State v. Carmini Laloogreen2 sentences2026"The law-of-the-case doctrine is a non-binding rule intended to prevent relitigation of a previously resolved issue in the same case." State v. K.P.S., 221 N.J. 266, 276 (2015) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 2026"The law[]of[]the[]case doctrine is a non-binding rule intended to prevent re[-]litigation of a previously resolved issue in the same case." State v. Njango, 247 N.J. 533 , 544 (2021) (quoting K.P.S., 221 N.J. at 276 ). | 10 | 11 |
Lanzet v. Greenberggreen2 sentences2018"It is a non-binding rule intended to 'prevent relitigation of a previously resolved issue.'" Ibid. (quoting In re Estate of Stockdale, 196 N.J. 275, 311 (2008) (citing Pressler, Current N.J. 2018"It is a non-binding rule intended to 'prevent relitigation of a previously resolved issue.' " Ibid. (quoting In re Estate of Stockdale , 196 N.J. 275 , 311, 953 A.2d 454 (2008) (citing Pressler, Current N.J. | 3 | 6 |
State v. Reldangreen2 sentences2026See also State v. Reldan, 100 N.J. 187, 208 (1985) (O'Hern, J., dissenting) ("[T]he 'law of the case' rule ordinarily precludes a court from reexamining an issue previously decided by the same court, or a higher appellate court, in the same case." (internal quotation marks omitted)). 2022Ordinarily, the law-of-the-case doctrine "precludes a court from reexamining an issue previously decided by the same court, or a higher appellate court, in the same case." State v. Reldan, 100 N.J. 187, 208 (1985) (O'Hern, J., dissenting) (quoting United States v. Maybusher, 735 F.2d 366, 370 (9th Cir. 1984)). | 2 | 4 |
Hart v. City of Jersey Citygreen2 sentences2012The doctrine "is a non-binding rule intended to `prevent relitigation of a previously resolved issue.'" Ibid. (citing In re Estate of Stockdale, 196 N.J. 275, 311 , 953 A. 2d 454 (2008)). *216 However, "[a] hallmark of the law of the case doctrine is its discretionary nature, calling upon the deciding judge to balance the value of judicial deference for the rulings of a coordinate judge against those `factors that bear on the pursuit of justice and, particularly, the search for truth.'" Id. at 538-39, 25 A. 3d 1080 (quoting Hart v. City of Jersey City, 308 N.J.Super. 487, 498 , 706 A. 2d 256 ( 2012The doctrine "is a non-binding rule intended to `prevent relitigation of a previously resolved issue.'" Ibid. (citing In re Estate of Stockdale, 196 N.J. 275, 311 , 953 A. 2d 454 (2008)). *216 However, "[a] hallmark of the law of the case doctrine is its discretionary nature, calling upon the deciding judge to balance the value of judicial deference for the rulings of a coordinate judge against those `factors that bear on the pursuit of justice and, particularly, the search for truth.'" Id. at 538-39, 25 A. 3d 1080 (quoting Hart v. City of Jersey City, 308 N.J.Super. 487, 498 , 706 A. 2d 256 ( | 2 | 3 |
Jacoby v. Jacobygreen2 sentences2019The doctrine "is a non-binding rule intended 'to prevent relitigation of a previously resolved issue.'" Jacoby v. Jacoby, 427 N.J. 2017"When applicable, [the law of the case doctrine] prohibits 'a second judge on the same level, in the absence of additional developments or proofs, from differing with an earlier ruling[.]'" Jacoby v. Jacoby, 427 N.J. | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Frank J. Maybushergreen1 sentence2022Ordinarily, the law-of-the-case doctrine "precludes a court from reexamining an issue previously decided by the same court, or a higher appellate court, in the same case." State v. Reldan, 100 N.J. 187, 208 (1985) (O'Hern, J., dissenting) (quoting United States v. Maybusher, 735 F.2d 366, 370 (9th Cir. 1984)). | 1 | 1 |
Arizona v. Californiagreen2 sentences2015Lombardi v. Masso, 207 N.J. 517, 538 , 25 A.3d 1080 (2011) (quoting In re Estate of Stockdale, 196 N.J. 275, 311 , 953 A.2d 454 (2008)); see also Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 , 103 S.Ct. 1382, 1391 , 75 L.Ed.2d 318, 333 (1983) (“[W]hen a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.”); Reldan, supra, 100 N.J. at 208 , 495 A.2d 76 (O’Hern, J., dissenting) (“[T]he ‘law of the case’ rule ordinarily precludes a court from re-examining an issue previously decided by the same court, or a higher appellate c 2015Lombardi v. Masso, 207 N.J. 517, 538 , 25 A.3d 1080 (2011) (quoting In re Estate of Stockdale, 196 N.J. 275, 311 , 953 A.2d 454 (2008)); see also Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605, 618 , 103 S.Ct. 1382, 1391 , 75 L.Ed.2d 318, 333 (1983) (“[W]hen a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.”); Reldan, supra, 100 N.J. at 208 , 495 A.2d 76 (O’Hern, J., dissenting) (“[T]he ‘law of the case’ rule ordinarily precludes a court from re-examining an issue previously decided by the same court, or a higher appellate c | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Zirger v. General Accident Insurance
green
1 sentence2018"The law-of-the-case doctrine 'is a non-binding rule intended to prevent relitigation of a previously resolved issue' in the same case." Id. at 276 (quoting Lombardi v. Masso, 207 N.J. 517 , 18 A-2196-16T1 538 (2011)). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Bahrle v. Exxon Corp.
green
2 sentences2012The doctrine "`should be applied flexibly to serve the interests of justice.'" Bahrle v. Exxon Corp., 279 N.J.Super. 5, 21 , 652 A. 2d 178 (App.Div.1995) (quoting State v. Reldan, 100 N.J. 187, 205 , 495 A. 2d 76 (1985)), aff'd, 145 N.J. 144 , 678 A. 2d 225 (1996). 2012The doctrine "`should be applied flexibly to serve the interests of justice.'" Bahrle v. Exxon Corp., 279 N.J.Super. 5, 21 , 652 A. 2d 178 (App.Div.1995) (quoting State v. Reldan, 100 N.J. 187, 205 , 495 A. 2d 76 (1985)), aff'd, 145 N.J. 144 , 678 A. 2d 225 (1996). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Bahrle v. Exxon Corp.
green
2 sentences2012The doctrine "`should be applied flexibly to serve the interests of justice.'" Bahrle v. Exxon Corp., 279 N.J.Super. 5, 21 , 652 A. 2d 178 (App.Div.1995) (quoting State v. Reldan, 100 N.J. 187, 205 , 495 A. 2d 76 (1985)), aff'd, 145 N.J. 144 , 678 A. 2d 225 (1996). 2012The doctrine "`should be applied flexibly to serve the interests of justice.'" Bahrle v. Exxon Corp., 279 N.J.Super. 5, 21 , 652 A. 2d 178 (App.Div.1995) (quoting State v. Reldan, 100 N.J. 187, 205 , 495 A. 2d 76 (1985)), aff'd, 145 N.J. 144 , 678 A. 2d 225 (1996). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
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.