20 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2026 12 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 |
|---|---|---|
Idaho v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2025In Idaho v. Wright, [ 497 U.S. 805, 821-22 (1990),] the United States Supreme Court summarized a non- exclusive list of factors relevant to evaluating the reliability of out-of-court statements made by child victims of sexual abuse, including spontaneity, consistent repetition, mental state of the declarant, use of terminology unexpected of a child of similar age, and lack of motive to fabricate. [State v. P.S., 202 N.J. 232, 249 (2010).] Having reviewed the record, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion either when it admitted Z.B.'s out-of-court statements or when it did no 2024Relying on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 821-22 (1990), our Supreme Court has identified "a non-exclusive list of factors relevant to evaluating the reliability of out-of- court statements made by child victims of sexual abuse, including spontaneity, consistent repetition, mental state of the declarant, use of terminology unexpected of a child of similar age, and lack of motive to fabricate." A.R., 234 N.J. at 103–04 (quoting P.S., 202 N.J. at 249 ). | 7 | 8 |
State v. PSgreen2 sentences2025In Idaho v. Wright, [ 497 U.S. 805, 821-22 (1990),] the United States Supreme Court summarized a non- exclusive list of factors relevant to evaluating the reliability of out-of-court statements made by child victims of sexual abuse, including spontaneity, consistent repetition, mental state of the declarant, use of terminology unexpected of a child of similar age, and lack of motive to fabricate. [State v. P.S., 202 N.J. 232, 249 (2010).] Having reviewed the record, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion either when it admitted Z.B.'s out-of-court statements or when it did no 2024Relying on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 821-22 (1990), our Supreme Court has identified "a non-exclusive list of factors relevant to evaluating the reliability of out-of- court statements made by child victims of sexual abuse, including spontaneity, consistent repetition, mental state of the declarant, use of terminology unexpected of a child of similar age, and lack of motive to fabricate." A.R., 234 N.J. at 103–04 (quoting P.S., 202 N.J. at 249 ). | 3 | 6 |
In re Advisory Letter No. 7-11 of the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Extrajudicial Activitiesgreen2 sentences2026A-3767-23 20 In Presley, we determined the following non-exclusive list of factors were relevant to the analysis of challenges to searches and seizures on constitutional grounds: (1) the nature and extent of the judge's prior role as a prosecutor or attorney and the amount of time that passed since the disqualifying conduct; (2) the facts known to the judge at the time of the judicial act that is challenged; (3) the reasonableness of efforts made by the State and the judge to identify a conflict before judicial action is taken; (4) the evidence of actual partiality on the part of the judge, in 2019In Presley, we determined the following non-exclusive list of factors were relevant to the analysis of challenges to searches and seizures on constitutional grounds: (1) the nature and extent of the judge's prior role as a prosecutor or attorney and the amount of time that passed since the disqualifying conduct; (2) the facts known to the judge at the time of the judicial act that is challenged; (3) the reasonableness of efforts made by the State and the judge to identify a conflict before judicial action is taken; A-5319-15T2 30 (4) the evidence of actual partiality on the part of the judge, | 2 | 2 |
G.M. v. C.V.green2 sentences2026Super. at 435 ." G.M. v. C.V., 453 N.J. 2026Super. at 435 ." G.M. v. C.V., 453 N.J. | 2 | 2 |
Carfagno v. Carfagnogreen2 sentences2026"In evaluating whether good cause has been shown under the statute to modify or dissolve a final order, a court is to consider the non-exclusive list of factors set forth in Carfagno, 288 N.J. 2026"In evaluating whether good cause has been shown under the statute to modify or dissolve a final order, a court is to consider the non-exclusive list of factors set forth in Carfagno, 288 N.J. | 1 | 4 |
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.green2 sentences2026The current inquiry to assess reliability in criminal cases was established in State v. Olenowski (Olenowski I), 253 N.J. 133 , 151-52 (2023), which invites courts to consider a non-exclusive list of factors known as the “Daubert factors,” derived from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593-94 (1993). 2026To assess reliability, the current inquiry in civil and criminal cases invites courts to consider a non-exclusive list of factors known as the “Daubert factors.” Accutane, 234 N.J. at 397-99 ; Olenowski I, 253 N.J. at 151-52; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593-94 (1993) (listing four factors -- testing, peer review and publication, rate of error, and general acceptance in the relevant scientific community). | 1 | 1 |
State v. TEgreen1 sentence2020Thus, courts will admit a child's pre-trial statement, pursuant to N.J.R.E. 803(c)(27), when the answers are spontaneous, the language used is appropriate for that of a similarly-aged child, "there [is] no motive to fabricate and there [are] no inconsistencies." State v. T.E., 342 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Murray v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2014The following non-exclusive list of factors are relevant to our analysis here: (1) the nature and extent of the judge's prior role as a prosecutor or attorney and the amount of time that passed since the disqualifying conduct; (2) the facts known to the judge at the time of the judicial act that is challenged; (3) the reasonableness of efforts made by the State and the judge to identify a conflict before judicial action is taken; (4) the evidence of actual partiality on the part of the judge, including any evidence that his or her prior role affected the decision made;15 (5) the length of dela 2014The following non-exclusive list of factors are relevant to our analysis here: (1) the nature and extent of the judge's prior role as a prosecutor or attorney and the amount of time that passed since the disqualifying conduct; (2) the facts known to the judge at the time of the judicial act that is challenged; (3) the reasonableness of efforts made by the State and the judge to identify a conflict before judicial action is taken; (4) the evidence of actual partiality on the part of the judge, including any evidence that his or her prior role affected the decision made;15 (5) the length of dela | 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. Roman
green
2 sentences2025Ibid. (citing Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 821-22 (1990)); see also State v. Donegan, 265 N.J. 2018We have identified "a non-exclusive list of factors relevant to evaluating the reliability of out-of-court statements made by child victims of sexual abuse, including spontaneity, consistent repetition, mental state of the declarant , use of terminology unexpected of a child of similar age, and lack of motive to fabricate." **104 Id. at 249 , 997 A.2d 163 (emphases added) (citing Idaho v. Wright , 497 U.S. 805 , 821-22, 110 S.Ct. 3139 , 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990) ). | 2 | 2018–2025 |
In re Accutane Litig.
green
2 sentences2026To assess reliability, the current inquiry in civil and criminal cases invites courts to consider a non-exclusive list of factors known as the “Daubert factors.” Accutane, 234 N.J. at 397-99 ; Olenowski I, 253 N.J. at 151-52; Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593-94 (1993) (listing four factors -- testing, peer review and publication, rate of error, and general acceptance in the relevant scientific community). 2026The Court, however, has not “embrace[d] the full body of Daubert case law as applied by state and federal courts.” Accutane, 234 N.J. at 399 ; Olenowski I, 253 N.J. at 154. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Pavlova v. Mint Management Corp.
green
2 sentences2026The PDA provides a non-exclusive list of factors the factfinder must consider in determining whether to award punitive damages, including: (1) The likelihood, at the relevant time, that serious harm would arise from the defendant's conduct; (2) The defendant's awareness or reckless disregard of the likelihood that the serious harm at issue would arise from the defendant's conduct; (3) The conduct of the defendant upon learning that its initial conduct would likely cause harm; and (4) The duration of the conduct or any concealment of it by the defendant. [N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.12(b).] A-3914-23 61 " 2026Super. at 404 . "[M]ere negligence, however gross, is not enough" but "the standard signifies something less than an intention to hurt." Id. at 405 . "[T]he standard can only be established if the defendant knew or had reason to know of circumstances which would bring home to the ordinary reasonable person the highly dangerous character of his or her conduct." Ibid. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State of New Jersey v. Calvin Presley
green
1 sentence2026A-3767-23 20 In Presley, we determined the following non-exclusive list of factors were relevant to the analysis of challenges to searches and seizures on constitutional grounds: (1) the nature and extent of the judge's prior role as a prosecutor or attorney and the amount of time that passed since the disqualifying conduct; (2) the facts known to the judge at the time of the judicial act that is challenged; (3) the reasonableness of efforts made by the State and the judge to identify a conflict before judicial action is taken; (4) the evidence of actual partiality on the part of the judge, in | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State ex rel. A.R.
green
1 sentence2024Relying on the United States Supreme Court's decision in Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 821-22 (1990), our Supreme Court has identified "a non-exclusive list of factors relevant to evaluating the reliability of out-of- court statements made by child victims of sexual abuse, including spontaneity, consistent repetition, mental state of the declarant, use of terminology unexpected of a child of similar age, and lack of motive to fabricate." A.R., 234 N.J. at 103–04 (quoting P.S., 202 N.J. at 249 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Lozano v. Frank DeLuca Construction
green
1 sentence2021Id. at 534-35 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. O'NEILL
green
1 sentence2021First, we pointed out that factor four, when found to be present, should receive “great weight” because “[p]roviding that information would strongly suggest that the defendant made any post-warning incriminating statements knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently.” Id. at 181 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.