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.
18 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2010See also People v. Johnson, 115 A.D.2d 973 , 497 N.Y.S.2d 539, 539-40 (1985) (holding that “confidential communications between a Muslim brother acting as a spiritual advisor may, in some cases, be privileged” and that “[f]or communications to be privileged, they must have been made with the purpose of seeking religious counsel, advice, solace, absolution or ministration [and t]hey must also have been made with the intention that they remain confidential” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). 2010See also People v. Johnson, 115 A.D.2d 973 , 497 N.Y.S.2d 539, 539-40 (1985) (holding that “confidential communications between a Muslim brother acting as a spiritual advisor may, in some cases, be privileged” and that “[f]or communications to be privileged, they must have been made with the purpose of seeking religious counsel, advice, solace, absolution or ministration [and t]hey must also have been made with the intention that they remain confidential” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). | 2 | 2 |
Docket No. 01-7941green1 sentence2022Instead, it removed that language in its entirety and replaced it with a permissive "request." The amended paragraph (j) A-4567-18 10 reflects, at most, an "attempt[] to convince" and not an "attempt[] to coerce." Okwedy v. Molinari, 333 F.3d 339, 344 (2d Cir. 2003). | 1 | 1 |
Janicky v. Point Bay Fuel, Inc.green1 sentence2018Super. 547 , 550-51 and n.3 (App. Div. 2011); Janicky v. Point Bay Fuel, Inc., 410 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Michael Conley, Jr. v. Mona Guerrero(076928)green1 sentence2018Conley v. Guerrero, 228 N.J. 339, 346 (2017). | 1 | 1 |
R.M. v. Supreme Court of New Jerseygreen1 sentence2007Those rules apply in this appeal and to all ethics matters currently pending. [Id. at 231, 883 A.2d 369 .] In Nero v. Hyland, 76 N.J. 213, 226-27 , 386 A.2d 846 (1978), the New Jersey Supreme Court determined it was inappropriate to apply a balancing test to determine whether documents obtained or created by the Attorney General while investigating the character of gubernatorial appointments should be made public. | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Veygreen2 sentences2006See Matter of Vey, 124 N.J. 534, 544 , 591 A.2d 1333 (1991) (“When the absence of particular findings hinders or detracts from effective appellate review, the court may remand the matter to the agency for a clearer statement of findings and later reconsideration.”). 2006See Matter of Vey, 124 N.J. 534, 544 , 591 A.2d 1333 (1991) (“When the absence of particular findings hinders or detracts from effective appellate review, the court may remand the matter to the agency for a clearer statement of findings and later reconsideration.”). | 1 | 1 |
Doe v. Supreme Court of Floridagreen2 sentences2005Thus, an equally compelling assertion can be made that the effect of [the confidentiality rule], along with the attendant threat that violators of the rule will be held in contempt of court, may actually serve to discourage the filing of complaints, surely a result not in harmony with the regulations’ intended purpose. [Id. at 985.] The court, citing Landmark, also rejected the State’s argument that protecting the reputation of attorneys was a compelling interest: “If maintaining the reputation of the judiciary as an abstract end is insufficient to justify encroaching upon the robust exercise 2005Thus, an equally compelling assertion can be made that the effect of [the confidentiality rule], along with the attendant threat that violators of the rule will be held in contempt of court, may actually serve to discourage the filing of complaints, surely a result not in harmony with the regulations' intended purpose. [ Id. at 985 .] The court, citing Landmark, also rejected the State's argument that protecting the reputation of attorneys was a compelling interest: "If maintaining the reputation of the judiciary as an abstract end is insufficient to justify encroaching upon the robust exercis | 1 | 1 |
John James Mary James v. Cecil B. Jacobson, Jr., M.D. Reproductive Genetics Center, Limitedgreen1 sentence1995Cf. Doe v. City of New York, 15 F. 3d 264 (2nd Cir.1994) (agency publicly disclosed the settlement terms of HIV infected plaintiff's discrimination claim in accordance with New York City law despite a confidentiality clause in the settlement agreement; court determined that under the agreement plaintiff had a right to confidentiality in his HIV status, and it did not "automatically become a public record when he filed his claim with the Commission and entered into the Conciliation Agreement"); James v. Jacobson, 6 F. 3d 233, 234-235 (4th Cir.1993) (plaintiffs allowed to proceed anonymously whe | 1 | 1 |
UNITED STATES of America v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION, Appellantgreen1 sentence1995Cf. Doe v. City of New York, 15 F. 3d 264 (2nd Cir.1994) (agency publicly disclosed the settlement terms of HIV infected plaintiff's discrimination claim in accordance with New York City law despite a confidentiality clause in the settlement agreement; court determined that under the agreement plaintiff had a right to confidentiality in his HIV status, and it did not "automatically become a public record when he filed his claim with the Commission and entered into the Conciliation Agreement"); James v. Jacobson, 6 F. 3d 233, 234-235 (4th Cir.1993) (plaintiffs allowed to proceed anonymously whe | 1 | 1 |
Burka v. New York City Transit Authoritygreen2 sentences1993See, e.g., International Bhd. of Teamsters v. Dep’t of Transp., 932 F.2d 1292, 1299 (9th Cir.1991) (noting regulations “preclude the tests’ use for law enforcement purposes by protecting the confidentiality of test results”); Burka v. New York City Transit Auth., 739 F.Supp. 814, 828 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (noting that probable-cause standard governs criminal investigations and that enforcement of criminal code is not goal of drug-testing program); Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 993 v. City of Oklahoma City, 710 F.Supp. 1321, 1332 (W.D.Okl.1988) (highlighting that drug-test results “would not lead t 1993See, e.g., International Bhd. of Teamsters v. Dep't of Transp., 932 F. 2d 1292 , 1299 (9th Cir.1991) (noting regulations "preclude the tests' use for law enforcement purposes by protecting the confidentiality of test results"); Burka v. New York City *202 Transit Auth., 739 F. Supp. 814, 828 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (noting that probable-cause standard governs criminal investigations and that enforcement of criminal code is not goal of drug-testing program); Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 993 v. City of Oklahoma City, 710 F. Supp. 1321, 1332 (W.D.Okl. 1988) (highlighting that drug-test results "would | 1 | 1 |
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuitgreen2 sentences1993See, e.g., International Bhd. of Teamsters v. Dep’t of Transp., 932 F.2d 1292, 1299 (9th Cir.1991) (noting regulations “preclude the tests’ use for law enforcement purposes by protecting the confidentiality of test results”); Burka v. New York City Transit Auth., 739 F.Supp. 814, 828 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (noting that probable-cause standard governs criminal investigations and that enforcement of criminal code is not goal of drug-testing program); Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 993 v. City of Oklahoma City, 710 F.Supp. 1321, 1332 (W.D.Okl.1988) (highlighting that drug-test results “would not lead t 1993See, e.g., International Bhd. of Teamsters v. Dep't of Transp., 932 F. 2d 1292 , 1299 (9th Cir.1991) (noting regulations "preclude the tests' use for law enforcement purposes by protecting the confidentiality of test results"); Burka v. New York City *202 Transit Auth., 739 F. Supp. 814, 828 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (noting that probable-cause standard governs criminal investigations and that enforcement of criminal code is not goal of drug-testing program); Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 993 v. City of Oklahoma City, 710 F. Supp. 1321, 1332 (W.D.Okl. 1988) (highlighting that drug-test results "would | 1 | 1 |
Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 993 v. City of Oklahomagreen2 sentences1993See, e.g., International Bhd. of Teamsters v. Dep’t of Transp., 932 F.2d 1292, 1299 (9th Cir.1991) (noting regulations “preclude the tests’ use for law enforcement purposes by protecting the confidentiality of test results”); Burka v. New York City Transit Auth., 739 F.Supp. 814, 828 (S.D.N.Y.1990) (noting that probable-cause standard governs criminal investigations and that enforcement of criminal code is not goal of drug-testing program); Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 993 v. City of Oklahoma City, 710 F.Supp. 1321, 1332 (W.D.Okl.1988) (highlighting that drug-test results “would not lead t 1993See, e.g., International Bhd. of Teamsters v. Dep't of Transp., 932 F. 2d 1292 , 1299 (9th Cir.1991) (noting regulations "preclude the tests' use for law enforcement purposes by protecting the confidentiality of test results"); Burka v. New York City *202 Transit Auth., 739 F. Supp. 814, 828 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (noting that probable-cause standard governs criminal investigations and that enforcement of criminal code is not goal of drug-testing program); Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 993 v. City of Oklahoma City, 710 F. Supp. 1321, 1332 (W.D.Okl. 1988) (highlighting that drug-test results "would | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Keddie v. Rutgers, State University
green
2 sentences2023"When there is a confidentiality claim, the 'applicant's interest in disclosure is more closely scrutinized.'" Carter, 230 N.J. at 282 (quoting Keddie, 148 N.J. at 51 ). 2017When there is a confidentiality claim, the “applicant’s interest in disclosure is more closely scrutinized.” Keddie, supra, 148 N.J. at 51 , 689 A.2d 702 . | 3 | 2017–2023 |
Loigman v. Kimmelman
green
2 sentences2017With this in mind, courts consider whether the confidentiality claim is “premised upon a purpose which tends to advance or further a wholesome public interest or a legitimate private interest.” Loigman, supra, 102 N.J. at 112 , 505 A.2d 958 (quoting City of St. 2017With this in mind, courts consider whether the confidentiality claim is “premised upon a purpose which tends to advance or further a wholesome public interest or a legitimate private interest.” Loigman, supra, 102 N.J. at 112 , 505 A.2d 958 (quoting City of St. | 3 | 2017–2023 |
New Jersey Firemen's Ass'n v. Doe
green
1 sentence2023"When there is a confidentiality claim, the 'applicant's interest in disclosure is more closely scrutinized.'" Carter, 230 N.J. at 282 (quoting Keddie, 148 N.J. at 51 ). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Thompson v. New Jersey State Parole Bd.
green
2 sentences2019We also considered that "prisoners are entitled not only to reasonable standards implementing a confidentiality exception which is no broader than its lawful purpose requires, but also to good faith determinations, made pursuant to those standards, whether file materials are to be withheld." Id. at 123-24 . 2 N.J.A.C. 10A:71-2.1 was recodified to N.J.A.C. 10A:71-2.2. 2019A-0880-15T2 4 Although we decided N.J.A.C. 10A:71-2.1(c) was facially valid, id. at 124 , we formulated a procedure to "sufficiently protect the prisoner's due process rights with the least intrusion on the [Department's] legitimate concern for confidentiality," id. at 125-26 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Whitfield v. BONANNO REAL ESTATE
green
1 sentence2018In 1988, W.W. and their then-attorney, Thomas Roth, and OSBNJ and its then-attorney, Edward F. Broderick, Jr., executed a settlement agreement and release,3 which contained the following confidentiality clause: [W.W.] and their attorney will keep confidential and not make public, or knowingly or negligently reveal to anyone, including, without limitation, any current, former or future student of Delbarton School or member . . . of their family, any information regarding [W.W.'s] claims against . . . [OSBNJ], or disclose any claim that is in any way related to this [s]ettlement [a]greement and | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Matter of Rules Adoption Regarding Inmate-Therapist Conf.
green
2 sentences2007In construing the regulation using its plain meaning, as it is not ambiguous on its face, see State v. Hoffman, 149 N.J. 564, 578 , 695 A. 2d 236 (1997) (explaining principles of statutory interpretation), N.J.A.C. 10A:16-4.4 operates within the disclosure parameters deemed constitutionally permissible by us in In re Inmate-Therapist Confidentiality, supra, 224 N.J.Super. 252 , 540 A. 2d 212 . 2007In construing the regulation using its plain meaning, as it is not ambiguous on its face, see State v. Hoffman, 149 N.J. 564, 578 , 695 A. 2d 236 (1997) (explaining principles of statutory interpretation), N.J.A.C. 10A:16-4.4 operates within the disclosure parameters deemed constitutionally permissible by us in In re Inmate-Therapist Confidentiality, supra, 224 N.J.Super. 252 , 540 A. 2d 212 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Nero v. Hyland
green
2 sentences2007Those rules apply in this appeal and to all ethics matters currently pending. [Id. at 231, 883 A.2d 369 .] In Nero v. Hyland, 76 N.J. 213, 226-27 , 386 A.2d 846 (1978), the New Jersey Supreme Court determined it was inappropriate to apply a balancing test to determine whether documents obtained or created by the Attorney General while investigating the character of gubernatorial appointments should be made public. 2007Those rules apply in this appeal and to all ethics matters currently pending. [Id. at 231, 883 A.2d 369 .] In Nero v. Hyland, 76 N.J. 213, 226-27 , 386 A.2d 846 (1978), the New Jersey Supreme Court determined it was inappropriate to apply a balancing test to determine whether documents obtained or created by the Attorney General while investigating the character of gubernatorial appointments should be made public. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Hoffman
green
2 sentences2007In construing the regulation using its plain meaning, as it is not ambiguous on its face, see State v. Hoffman, 149 N.J. 564, 578 , 695 A. 2d 236 (1997) (explaining principles of statutory interpretation), N.J.A.C. 10A:16-4.4 operates within the disclosure parameters deemed constitutionally permissible by us in In re Inmate-Therapist Confidentiality, supra, 224 N.J.Super. 252 , 540 A. 2d 212 . 2007In construing the regulation using its plain meaning, as it is not ambiguous on its face, see State v. Hoffman, 149 N.J. 564, 578 , 695 A. 2d 236 (1997) (explaining principles of statutory interpretation), N.J.A.C. 10A:16-4.4 operates within the disclosure parameters deemed constitutionally permissible by us in In re Inmate-Therapist Confidentiality, supra, 224 N.J.Super. 252 , 540 A. 2d 212 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Doe v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island
green
1 sentence1995Cf. Doe v. City of New York, 15 F. 3d 264 (2nd Cir.1994) (agency publicly disclosed the settlement terms of HIV infected plaintiff's discrimination claim in accordance with New York City law despite a confidentiality clause in the settlement agreement; court determined that under the agreement plaintiff had a right to confidentiality in his HIV status, and it did not "automatically become a public record when he filed his claim with the Commission and entered into the Conciliation Agreement"); James v. Jacobson, 6 F. 3d 233, 234-235 (4th Cir.1993) (plaintiffs allowed to proceed anonymously whe | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Doe v. City of New York
green
2 sentences1995Cf. Doe v. City of New York, 15 F. 3d 264 (2nd Cir.1994) (agency publicly disclosed the settlement terms of HIV infected plaintiff's discrimination claim in accordance with New York City law despite a confidentiality clause in the settlement agreement; court determined that under the agreement plaintiff had a right to confidentiality in his HIV status, and it did not "automatically become a public record when he filed his claim with the Commission and entered into the Conciliation Agreement"); James v. Jacobson, 6 F. 3d 233, 234-235 (4th Cir.1993) (plaintiffs allowed to proceed anonymously whe 1995The issue here is plaintiff's right to proceed anonymously, which was not directly implicated in Doe v. City of New York, supra, 15 F. 3d 264 , because there was a violation of a confidentiality agreement. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Matter of Hearing on Immunity for Ethics
green
2 sentences1990Disclosure by any person of any information concerning a pending or completed investigation or proceeding, except as permitted by these rules, may subject that person to an action for contempt of the Supreme Court in addition to loss of any immunity provided under R. 1:20-11(b). [Emphasis added.] In In re Hearing on Immunity for Ethics Complainants, 96 N.J. 669 , 675 n. 3, 477 A. 2d 339 (1984), the Supreme Court said, "[t]he Rule [ R. 1:20-11b] explicitly allows a defamation suit based on a complainant's statement made in violation of the confidentiality requirement of Rule 1:20-10." Defendant 1990Disclosure by any person of any information concerning a pending or completed investigation or proceeding, except as permitted by these rules, may subject that person to an action for contempt of the Supreme Court in addition to loss of any immunity provided under R. 1:20-11(b). [Emphasis added.] In In re Hearing on Immunity for Ethics Complainants, 96 N.J. 669 , 675 n. 3, 477 A. 2d 339 (1984), the Supreme Court said, "[t]he Rule [ R. 1:20-11b] explicitly allows a defamation suit based on a complainant's statement made in violation of the confidentiality requirement of Rule 1:20-10." Defendant | 1 | 1990–1990 |
State in Interest of JPB
green
1 sentence1986Guideline 5 emphasizes that a trust relationship based upon confidentiality is essential in order to effectuate meaningful rehabilitation [at 340, n. 1] *120 Also, in State In Interest of J.P.B., 143 N.J. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Stone v. Rosen
green
1 sentence1984Rule 259(C) (Michie Supp. 1983); Stone v. Rosen, 348 So. 2d 387 (Fla. Dist. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
State v. Leonardis
green
1 sentence1977Guideline 5 emphasizes that a trust relationship based upon confidentiality is essential in order to effectuate meaningful rehabilitation. [2] See Leonardis II 73 N.J. at 383 wherein the court makes it clear that the review hearing is not to be a trial type proceeding but is to be brief and informal. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.