19 New Jersey opinions name it 1 courts 1995–2026 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
Pasqua v. Councilgreen2 sentences2018Citing Pasqua v. Council, 186 N.J. 127, 133 (2006), he argues, "a party is entitled to an ability to pay hearing before being sanctioned, especially with regard to support matters." An ability- to-pay hearing examines a person's present financial wherewithal to pay his or A-1522-15T2 7 her extant support obligations. 2014Central to the Court's ruling in Pasqua was its concern that, "[w]hen an indigent litigant is forced to proceed at an ability-to-pay hearing without counsel, there is a high risk of an erroneous determination and wrongful incarceration." Pasqua, supra, 186 N.J. at 145 . | 2 | 4 |
Milne v. Goldenberggreen2 sentences2026But after holding an ability-to-pay hearing, the court eliminated the financial penalty in favor of 120 hours of community service. 428 N.J. 2019Defendant argues the judge abused his discretion 5 by denying his motion for reconsideration of the June 22 and July 7 orders, and deprived him of "all 4 On December 14, 2017, we denied defendant's emergent application, seeking a stay of the December 4 order, noting that "[i]f arrested, the trial court must conduct an ability to pay hearing before defendant can be incarcerated." On December 15, 2017, over defendant's objection, plaintiff's attorney filed a certificate of non-compliance with the court, averring that defendant failed to comply with the December 4 order and requesting an enforcem | 1 | 2 |
Brennan v. Brennangreen1 sentence2026Super. at 198-199 ; see also Brennan v. Brennan, 187 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Carlos Bolvito (071493)green1 sentence2025See State v. Bolvito, 217 N.J. 221, 234-35 (2014) (holding a sentencing court setting a Sex Crime Victim Treatment Fund penalty "should consider the defendant's ability to pay the amount assessed" and "provide a statement of reasons when it sets a defendant's . . . penalty . . . ."). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lawlessgreen1 sentence2024We review a "trial court's 'sentencing determination under a deferential standard of review.'" State v. Grate, 220 N.J. 317, 337 (2015) (quoting State v. Lawless, 214 N.J. 594, 606 (2013)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Roachgreen1 sentence2024During oral argument, defendant sought a remand for an ability to pay hearing and allocation of the restitution amount between the defendants, and for the court to explain its reasons for the disparate sentence pursuant to State v. Roach, 146 N.J. 208, 220 (1996). | 1 | 1 |
State v. James Grate State v. Fuquan Cromwell (072750)green1 sentence2024We review a "trial court's 'sentencing determination under a deferential standard of review.'" State v. Grate, 220 N.J. 317, 337 (2015) (quoting State v. Lawless, 214 N.J. 594, 606 (2013)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen1 sentence2022See State v. Smith, 307 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Hisenaj v. Kuehnergreen1 sentence2019Defendant argues the judge abused his discretion 5 by denying his motion for reconsideration of the June 22 and July 7 orders, and deprived him of "all 4 On December 14, 2017, we denied defendant's emergent application, seeking a stay of the December 4 order, noting that "[i]f arrested, the trial court must conduct an ability to pay hearing before defendant can be incarcerated." On December 15, 2017, over defendant's objection, plaintiff's attorney filed a certificate of non-compliance with the court, averring that defendant failed to comply with the December 4 order and requesting an enforcem | 1 | 1 |
State v. Torresgreen1 sentence2019Defendant argues the judge abused his discretion 5 by denying his motion for reconsideration of the June 22 and July 7 orders, and deprived him of "all 4 On December 14, 2017, we denied defendant's emergent application, seeking a stay of the December 4 order, noting that "[i]f arrested, the trial court must conduct an ability to pay hearing before defendant can be incarcerated." On December 15, 2017, over defendant's objection, plaintiff's attorney filed a certificate of non-compliance with the court, averring that defendant failed to comply with the December 4 order and requesting an enforcem | 1 | 1 |
A-3601-13t2 Ariel Schochet v. Sharona Schochetgreen1 sentence2018See Schochet v. Schochet, 435 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Randazzo v. Randazzogreen2 sentences2014See Randazzo v. Randazzo, 184 N.J. 101, 113 , 875 A.2d 916 (2005) (sanctioning liquidation of assets to fund a litigation) and Williams v. Williams, 59 N.J. 229, 233-34 , 281 A.2d 273 (1971) (addressing need for counsel fees and the ability to pay as factors in an award of fees). 2014See Randazzo v. Randazzo, 184 N.J. 101, 113 , 875 A.2d 916 (2005) (sanctioning liquidation of assets to fund a litigation) and Williams v. Williams, 59 N.J. 229, 233-34 , 281 A.2d 273 (1971) (addressing need for counsel fees and the ability to pay as factors in an award of fees). | 1 | 1 |
Williams v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2014See Randazzo v. Randazzo, 184 N.J. 101, 113 , 875 A.2d 916 (2005) (sanctioning liquidation of assets to fund a litigation) and Williams v. Williams, 59 N.J. 229, 233-34 , 281 A.2d 273 (1971) (addressing need for counsel fees and the ability to pay as factors in an award of fees). 2014See Randazzo v. Randazzo, 184 N.J. 101, 113 , 875 A.2d 916 (2005) (sanctioning liquidation of assets to fund a litigation) and Williams v. Williams, 59 N.J. 229, 233-34 , 281 A.2d 273 (1971) (addressing need for counsel fees and the ability to pay as factors in an award of fees). | 1 | 1 |
Wei v. Weigreen1 sentence1996See Wei v. Wei, 248 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Securities and Exchange Commission, William T. Dolan, Receiver v. Neil T. Naftalingreen1 sentence1996Cf. In re Carton, 48 N.J. 9, 24 , 222 A. 2d 92 (1966) (a coercive civil order is interlocutory; an order of commitment to enforce it would be final); International Business Machines Corp. v. United States, 493 F. 2d 112, 114-15 (2d Cir.1973), cert. denied 416 U.S. 995 , 94 S.Ct. 2409 , 40 L.Ed. 2d 774 (1974); SEC v. Naftalin, 460 F. 2d 471, 475 (8th Cir.1972). | 1 | 1 |
cluster 317609green1 sentence1996Cf. In re Carton, 48 N.J. 9, 24 , 222 A. 2d 92 (1966) (a coercive civil order is interlocutory; an order of commitment to enforce it would be final); International Business Machines Corp. v. United States, 493 F. 2d 112, 114-15 (2d Cir.1973), cert. denied 416 U.S. 995 , 94 S.Ct. 2409 , 40 L.Ed. 2d 774 (1974); SEC v. Naftalin, 460 F. 2d 471, 475 (8th Cir.1972). | 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. Harris
green
2 sentences1995Cf. N.J.S.A. 2C:44-2d (prohibiting the court from imposing an alternative sentence where the restitution is not paid); State v. Harris, 70 N.J. 586, 592 , 362 A.2d 32 (1976) (court has discretion to impose restitution as condition of probation). 1995Cf. N.J.S.A. 2C:44-2d (prohibiting the court from imposing an alternative sentence where the restitution is not paid); State v. Harris, 70 N.J. 586, 592 , 362 A.2d 32 (1976) (court has discretion to impose restitution as condition of probation). | 2 | 1995–1995 |
Brady v. Maryland
green
1 sentence2025Ibid. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Tevis v. Tevis
green
1 sentence2022Here, plaintiff did not request an ability-to-pay hearing but merely an abatement of his support obligations until he became re-employed. 4 Tevis v. Tevis, 79 N.J. 422 (1979). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Orji
green
1 sentence2019Ibid. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Jacobitti v. Jacobitti
green
2 sentences1999We are, however, satisfied that a modification deemed necessary by the trial court as the result of an enforcement proceeding may be ordered even if an appeal is pending. [3] Jacobitti v. Jacobitti, 135 N.J. 571 , 641 A. 2d 535 (1994). [4] We further point out that the amendment of R. 5:3-5(c), effective April 5, 1999, governing attorney fees in civil family actions, authorizes the court to direct that marital property be sold or mortgaged to provide funds for payment of attorney fees both pendente lite and on final determination. 1999We are, however, satisfied that a modification deemed necessary by the trial court as the result of an enforcement proceeding may be ordered even if an appeal is pending. [3] Jacobitti v. Jacobitti, 135 N.J. 571 , 641 A. 2d 535 (1994). [4] We further point out that the amendment of R. 5:3-5(c), effective April 5, 1999, governing attorney fees in civil family actions, authorizes the court to direct that marital property be sold or mortgaged to provide funds for payment of attorney fees both pendente lite and on final determination. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Carton v. Continental Casualty Co.
green
2 sentences1996Cf. In re Carton, 48 N.J. 9, 24 , 222 A. 2d 92 (1966) (a coercive civil order is interlocutory; an order of commitment to enforce it would be final); International Business Machines Corp. v. United States, 493 F. 2d 112, 114-15 (2d Cir.1973), cert. denied 416 U.S. 995 , 94 S.Ct. 2409 , 40 L.Ed. 2d 774 (1974); SEC v. Naftalin, 460 F. 2d 471, 475 (8th Cir.1972). 1996Cf. In re Carton, 48 N.J. 9, 24 , 222 A. 2d 92 (1966) (a coercive civil order is interlocutory; an order of commitment to enforce it would be final); International Business Machines Corp. v. United States, 493 F. 2d 112, 114-15 (2d Cir.1973), cert. denied 416 U.S. 995 , 94 S.Ct. 2409 , 40 L.Ed. 2d 774 (1974); SEC v. Naftalin, 460 F. 2d 471, 475 (8th Cir.1972). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Ciuzio v. United States
green
1 sentence1996Cf. In re Carton, 48 N.J. 9, 24 , 222 A. 2d 92 (1966) (a coercive civil order is interlocutory; an order of commitment to enforce it would be final); International Business Machines Corp. v. United States, 493 F. 2d 112, 114-15 (2d Cir.1973), cert. denied 416 U.S. 995 , 94 S.Ct. 2409 , 40 L.Ed. 2d 774 (1974); SEC v. Naftalin, 460 F. 2d 471, 475 (8th Cir.1972). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Smith v. Curtis
green
1 sentence1996Cf. In re Carton, 48 N.J. 9, 24 , 222 A. 2d 92 (1966) (a coercive civil order is interlocutory; an order of commitment to enforce it would be final); International Business Machines Corp. v. United States, 493 F. 2d 112, 114-15 (2d Cir.1973), cert. denied 416 U.S. 995 , 94 S.Ct. 2409 , 40 L.Ed. 2d 774 (1974); SEC v. Naftalin, 460 F. 2d 471, 475 (8th Cir.1972). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Graziani v. Committee on Legal Ethics
green
1 sentence1996Cf. In re Carton, 48 N.J. 9, 24 , 222 A. 2d 92 (1966) (a coercive civil order is interlocutory; an order of commitment to enforce it would be final); International Business Machines Corp. v. United States, 493 F. 2d 112, 114-15 (2d Cir.1973), cert. denied 416 U.S. 995 , 94 S.Ct. 2409 , 40 L.Ed. 2d 774 (1974); SEC v. Naftalin, 460 F. 2d 471, 475 (8th Cir.1972). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.