25 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2025 4 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. Samander S. Dabas (069498)green2 sentences2022Super. 124 , 137 (App. Div. 2017) (citing State v. Dabas, 215 N.J. 114, 141 (2013)) ("We recognize that trial courts are vested with the discretion to fashion an appropriate sanction for a violation of discovery obligations."). 2018The prosecutor insisted the DNA evidence linking defendant to the scene of the crime was "extraordinarily probative" and "extraordinarily important to the State." "We recognize that trial courts are vested with the discretion to fashion an appropriate sanction for a violation of discovery obligations." Richardson , 452 N.J.Super. at 137 , 171 A.3d 1270 (citing State v. Dabas , 215 N.J. 114 , 141, 71 A.3d 814 (2013) ). | 3 | 6 |
Abtrax Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Elkins-Sinn, Inc.green2 sentences2021See, e.g., Kosmowski, 175 N.J. at 575 ; see also Abtrax Pharms., Inc. v. Elkins-Sinn, Inc., 139 N.J. 499, 514 (1995) (explaining the determination of a sanction for the violation of a court order requires consideration of whether the violation is willful). 2016“In assessing the appropriate sanction for the violation of one of its orders, the court must consider a number of factors, including whether the plaintiff acted willfully and whether the defendant suffered harm, and if so, to what degree.” Gonzalez, supra, 185 N.J. at 115 , 881 A.2d 719 (citing Abtrax, supra, 139 N.J. at 514 , 655 A.2d 1368 ). | 3 | 4 |
Alaska Steamship Co. v. Pettersongreen2 sentences1989Burger, Abuses of Discovery: Judges are Correcting the Problem, 20 Trial 18 (1984). [2] While the United States Supreme Court has upheld the preclusion of defense witness testimony as a sanction for defense counsel's discovery violations, Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 , 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed. 2d 798 (1988), our Court has not yet had occasion to decide whether such a harsh procedure would violate our State Constitution. 1989While the United States Supreme Court has upheld the preclusion of defense witness testimony as a sanction for defense counsel's discovery violations, Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 , 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988), our Court has not yet had occasion to decide whether such a harsh procedure would violate our State Constitution. | 2 | 2 |
Gonzalez v. Safe & Sound Security Corp.green2 sentences2025"In assessing the appropriate sanction for the violation of one of its orders, the court must consider a number of factors, including whether the plaintiff acted willfully and whether the defendant suffered harm, and if so, to what degree." Williams, 226 N.J. at 128 (quoting Gonzalez, 185 N.J. at 115 ). 2025"In assessing the appropriate sanction for the violation of one of its orders, the court must consider a number of factors, including whether the plaintiff acted willfully and whether the defendant suffered harm, and if so, to what degree." Williams, 226 N.J. at 128 (quoting Gonzalez, 185 N.J. at 115 ). | 1 | 6 |
Taylor v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences1989While the United States Supreme Court has upheld the preclusion of defense witness testimony as a sanction for defense counsel's discovery violations, Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 , 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988), our Court has not yet had occasion to decide whether such a harsh procedure would violate our State Constitution. 1989While the United States Supreme Court has upheld the preclusion of defense witness testimony as a sanction for defense counsel's discovery violations, Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 , 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988), our Court has not yet had occasion to decide whether such a harsh procedure would violate our State Constitution. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Robert J. Stein(074466)green1 sentence2022"A trial court's resolution of a discovery issue is entitled to substantial deference and will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion." State v. Stein, 225 N.J. 582, 593 (2016). | 1 | 1 |
Kosmowski v. Atlantic City Medical Centergreen1 sentence2021See, e.g., Kosmowski, 175 N.J. at 575 ; see also Abtrax Pharms., Inc. v. Elkins-Sinn, Inc., 139 N.J. 499, 514 (1995) (explaining the determination of a sanction for the violation of a court order requires consideration of whether the violation is willful). | 1 | 1 |
Zaccardi v. Beckergreen1 sentence2021Dismissal of a complaint or the striking of an answer with prejudice as a sanction for a violation of a court rule or order "is imposed not only to penalize those whose conduct warrant it, but to deter others who [might] be tempted to violate the rules absent such a deterrent." Zaccardi v. Becker, 162 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. WBgreen2 sentences2013See, e.g., W.B., supra, 205 N.J. at 597, 609 , 17 A.3d 187 (holding “an adverse inference charge may be given when a police officer destroys his or her investigatory notes before trial”). 2013See, e.g., W.B., supra, 205 N.J. at 597, 609 , 17 A.3d 187 (holding “an adverse inference charge may be given when a police officer destroys his or her investigatory notes before trial”). | 1 | 1 |
Gilbert v. Californiagreen2 sentences1989See id. at ___, 108 S.Ct. at 657, 98 L.Ed. 2d at 817 (Brennan, J., dissenting) ("[A]t least where a criminal defendant is not personally responsible for the discovery violation, alternative sanctions are not only adequate to correct and deter discovery violations but are far superior to the arbitrary and disproportionate penalty imposed by the preclusion sanction."). [3] Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1178 (1967) (handwriting exemplars); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1149 (1967) (voice exemplars); Schmerber v. California, 3 1989See id. at ___, 108 S.Ct. at 657, 98 L.Ed. 2d at 817 (Brennan, J., dissenting) ("[A]t least where a criminal defendant is not personally responsible for the discovery violation, alternative sanctions are not only adequate to correct and deter discovery violations but are far superior to the arbitrary and disproportionate penalty imposed by the preclusion sanction."). [3] Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1178 (1967) (handwriting exemplars); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1149 (1967) (voice exemplars); Schmerber v. California, 3 | 1 | 1 |
Fisher v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1989See id. at ___, 108 S.Ct. at 657, 98 L.Ed. 2d at 817 (Brennan, J., dissenting) ("[A]t least where a criminal defendant is not personally responsible for the discovery violation, alternative sanctions are not only adequate to correct and deter discovery violations but are far superior to the arbitrary and disproportionate penalty imposed by the preclusion sanction."). [3] Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1178 (1967) (handwriting exemplars); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1149 (1967) (voice exemplars); Schmerber v. California, 3 1989See id. at ___, 108 S.Ct. at 657, 98 L.Ed. 2d at 817 (Brennan, J., dissenting) ("[A]t least where a criminal defendant is not personally responsible for the discovery violation, alternative sanctions are not only adequate to correct and deter discovery violations but are far superior to the arbitrary and disproportionate penalty imposed by the preclusion sanction."). [3] Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1178 (1967) (handwriting exemplars); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1149 (1967) (voice exemplars); Schmerber v. California, 3 | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Doegreen2 sentences1989See id. at ___, 108 S.Ct. at 657, 98 L.Ed. 2d at 817 (Brennan, J., dissenting) ("[A]t least where a criminal defendant is not personally responsible for the discovery violation, alternative sanctions are not only adequate to correct and deter discovery violations but are far superior to the arbitrary and disproportionate penalty imposed by the preclusion sanction."). [3] Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1178 (1967) (handwriting exemplars); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1149 (1967) (voice exemplars); Schmerber v. California, 3 1989See id. at ___, 108 S.Ct. at 657, 98 L.Ed. 2d at 817 (Brennan, J., dissenting) ("[A]t least where a criminal defendant is not personally responsible for the discovery violation, alternative sanctions are not only adequate to correct and deter discovery violations but are far superior to the arbitrary and disproportionate penalty imposed by the preclusion sanction."). [3] Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1178 (1967) (handwriting exemplars); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1149 (1967) (voice exemplars); Schmerber v. California, 3 | 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. Williams
green
2 sentences2019We concluded "that when the Legislature expressly stated in N.J.S.A. 2C:45-3(a)(4) that the sanction for a violation of probation (other than for the inherent criminality of the act) would be a revocation of probation, it intended that a defendant would [not] be subject to a new indictment for contempt in addition to the punishment for the original offense." Id. at 93 , 560 A.2d 100 . 2019We concluded "that when the Legislature expressly stated in N.J.S.A. 2C:45-3(a)(4) that the sanction for a violation of probation (other than for the inherent criminality of the act) would be a revocation of probation, it intended that a defendant would [not] be subject to a new indictment for contempt in addition to the punishment for the original offense." Id. at 93 , 560 A.2d 100 . | 2 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Bradshaw
green
2 sentences2009Bradshaw, supra, 195 N.J. at 507-08 , 950 A.2d 889 (stating court should consider prejudice to both parties, whether sanction other than preclusion will preserve policy of rule, and whether failure to give notice “was willful and intended to gain a tactical advantage”). 2009Bradshaw, supra, 195 N.J. at 507-08 , 950 A.2d 889 (stating court should consider prejudice to both parties, whether sanction other than preclusion will preserve policy of rule, and whether failure to give notice “was willful and intended to gain a tactical advantage”). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Lamar Williams v. American Auto Logistics(076004)
green
1 sentence2025"In assessing the appropriate sanction for the violation of one of its orders, the court must consider a number of factors, including whether the plaintiff acted willfully and whether the defendant suffered harm, and if so, to what degree." Williams, 226 N.J. at 128 (quoting Gonzalez, 185 N.J. at 115 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. M.G.
green
1 sentence2019"The Supreme Court has instructed that the assessment of the appropriate sanction for the violation of an order requires consideration of 'a number of factors, including whether the plaintiff acted willfully and whether the defendant suffered harm, and if so, to what degree.'" Id. at 171 (quoting Gonzalez v. Safe & Sound Sec. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In re Accutane Litigation
green
1 sentence2018The prosecutor insisted the DNA evidence linking defendant to the scene of the crime was "extraordinarily probative" and "extraordinarily important to the State." "We recognize that trial courts are vested with the discretion to fashion an appropriate sanction for a violation of discovery obligations." Richardson , 452 N.J.Super. at 137 , 171 A.3d 1270 (citing State v. Dabas , 215 N.J. 114 , 141, 71 A.3d 814 (2013) ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Milne v. Goldenberg
green
1 sentence2017Ibid. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
De Vitis v. New Jersey Racing Com'n
green
2 sentences2002Because racing is accompanied by legalized gambling it “strongly impaet[s] the public interest.” DeVitis v. New Jersey Racing Commission, 202 N.J.Super. 484, 490 , 495 A.2d 457 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 102 N.J. 337 , 508 A.2d 213 (.1985). 2002Because racing is accompanied by legalized gambling it “strongly impaet[s] the public interest.” DeVitis v. New Jersey Racing Commission, 202 N.J.Super. 484, 490 , 495 A.2d 457 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 102 N.J. 337 , 508 A.2d 213 (.1985). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Manorcare Health Services, Inc. v. Osmose Wood Preserving, Inc.
green
1 sentence2002Ibid. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
De Vitis v. New Jersey Racing Commission
green
2 sentences2002Because racing is accompanied by legalized gambling it “strongly impaet[s] the public interest.” DeVitis v. New Jersey Racing Commission, 202 N.J.Super. 484, 490 , 495 A.2d 457 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 102 N.J. 337 , 508 A.2d 213 (.1985). 2002Because racing is accompanied by legalized gambling it “strongly impaet[s] the public interest.” DeVitis v. New Jersey Racing Commission, 202 N.J.Super. 484, 490 , 495 A.2d 457 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 102 N.J. 337 , 508 A.2d 213 (.1985). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Williams
green
2 sentences1998In reaching her decision, the trial judge particularly noted that dismissal with prejudice was the ultimate sanction for violation of court rule or order, and that it is normally only imposed “when no lesser sanction will erase the prejudice suffered by the nondelinquent party.” However, she distinguished this case from cases where dismissal with prejudice was not ordered to preserve a “blameless plaintiffs claim,” and particularly noted, citing State v. Williams, 286 N.J.Super. 507 , 669 A.2d 867 (Law Div.1995), that “the objects to be achieved in a forfeiture action stand in contrast to the 1998In reaching her decision, the trial judge particularly noted that dismissal with prejudice was the ultimate sanction for violation of court rule or order, and that it is normally only imposed “when no lesser sanction will erase the prejudice suffered by the nondelinquent party.” However, she distinguished this case from cases where dismissal with prejudice was not ordered to preserve a “blameless plaintiffs claim,” and particularly noted, citing State v. Williams, 286 N.J.Super. 507 , 669 A.2d 867 (Law Div.1995), that “the objects to be achieved in a forfeiture action stand in contrast to the | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Boyd v. United States
red
2 sentences1989See id. at ___, 108 S.Ct. at 657, 98 L.Ed. 2d at 817 (Brennan, J., dissenting) ("[A]t least where a criminal defendant is not personally responsible for the discovery violation, alternative sanctions are not only adequate to correct and deter discovery violations but are far superior to the arbitrary and disproportionate penalty imposed by the preclusion sanction."). [3] Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1178 (1967) (handwriting exemplars); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1149 (1967) (voice exemplars); Schmerber v. California, 3 1989See id. at ___, 108 S.Ct. at 657, 98 L.Ed. 2d at 817 (Brennan, J., dissenting) ("[A]t least where a criminal defendant is not personally responsible for the discovery violation, alternative sanctions are not only adequate to correct and deter discovery violations but are far superior to the arbitrary and disproportionate penalty imposed by the preclusion sanction."). [3] Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1178 (1967) (handwriting exemplars); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1149 (1967) (voice exemplars); Schmerber v. California, 3 | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Schmerber v. California
green
2 sentences1989See id. at ___, 108 S.Ct. at 657, 98 L.Ed. 2d at 817 (Brennan, J., dissenting) ("[A]t least where a criminal defendant is not personally responsible for the discovery violation, alternative sanctions are not only adequate to correct and deter discovery violations but are far superior to the arbitrary and disproportionate penalty imposed by the preclusion sanction."). [3] Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1178 (1967) (handwriting exemplars); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1149 (1967) (voice exemplars); Schmerber v. California, 3 1989See id. at ___, 108 S.Ct. at 657, 98 L.Ed. 2d at 817 (Brennan, J., dissenting) ("[A]t least where a criminal defendant is not personally responsible for the discovery violation, alternative sanctions are not only adequate to correct and deter discovery violations but are far superior to the arbitrary and disproportionate penalty imposed by the preclusion sanction."). [3] Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1178 (1967) (handwriting exemplars); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1149 (1967) (voice exemplars); Schmerber v. California, 3 | 1 | 1989–1989 |
United States v. Wade
green
2 sentences1989See id. at ___, 108 S.Ct. at 657, 98 L.Ed. 2d at 817 (Brennan, J., dissenting) ("[A]t least where a criminal defendant is not personally responsible for the discovery violation, alternative sanctions are not only adequate to correct and deter discovery violations but are far superior to the arbitrary and disproportionate penalty imposed by the preclusion sanction."). [3] Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1178 (1967) (handwriting exemplars); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1149 (1967) (voice exemplars); Schmerber v. California, 3 1989See id. at ___, 108 S.Ct. at 657, 98 L.Ed. 2d at 817 (Brennan, J., dissenting) ("[A]t least where a criminal defendant is not personally responsible for the discovery violation, alternative sanctions are not only adequate to correct and deter discovery violations but are far superior to the arbitrary and disproportionate penalty imposed by the preclusion sanction."). [3] Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1178 (1967) (handwriting exemplars); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1149 (1967) (voice exemplars); Schmerber v. California, 3 | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Braswell v. United States
green
2 sentences1989See id. at ___, 108 S.Ct. at 657, 98 L.Ed. 2d at 817 (Brennan, J., dissenting) ("[A]t least where a criminal defendant is not personally responsible for the discovery violation, alternative sanctions are not only adequate to correct and deter discovery violations but are far superior to the arbitrary and disproportionate penalty imposed by the preclusion sanction."). [3] Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1178 (1967) (handwriting exemplars); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1149 (1967) (voice exemplars); Schmerber v. California, 3 1989See id. at ___, 108 S.Ct. at 657, 98 L.Ed. 2d at 817 (Brennan, J., dissenting) ("[A]t least where a criminal defendant is not personally responsible for the discovery violation, alternative sanctions are not only adequate to correct and deter discovery violations but are far superior to the arbitrary and disproportionate penalty imposed by the preclusion sanction."). [3] Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1178 (1967) (handwriting exemplars); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1149 (1967) (voice exemplars); Schmerber v. California, 3 | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Matter of Grand Jury Proceedings of Guarino
green
1 sentence1989See id. at ___, 108 S.Ct. at 657, 98 L.Ed. 2d at 817 (Brennan, J., dissenting) ("[A]t least where a criminal defendant is not personally responsible for the discovery violation, alternative sanctions are not only adequate to correct and deter discovery violations but are far superior to the arbitrary and disproportionate penalty imposed by the preclusion sanction."). [3] Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 , 87 S.Ct. 1951 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1178 (1967) (handwriting exemplars); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 , 87 S.Ct. 1926 , 18 L.Ed. 2d 1149 (1967) (voice exemplars); Schmerber v. California, 3 | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.