14 New Jersey opinions name it 4 courts 1914–2021 1 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. Loftingreen2 sentences2021See Loftin, 146 N.J. at 389 (noting "[a]lthough [the prosecutor's] comment could be interpreted as shifting the burden to the defense to disprove the State's allegation, it seems more likely to have been intended as an observation of the strength of the State's case"). 2021We add that the jury was properly instructed that A-5252-18 48 the burden of proof rests on the State and never shifts to the defendant. 6 See ibid. ("Given the trial court's comprehensive charge explaining the presumption of innocence, that the presumption remains until the State has proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendant 'has no burden to come forward with one scintilla of evidence,' and that the burden is on the State 'and that burden never, ever shifts,' we do not find that statement to have denied defendant a fair trial."). | 1 | 1 |
Levchuk v. Jovichgreen2 sentences2010In other words, the action on an accounting in probate is a vehicle for addressing "the conduct of the executor, not the conduct of others." Ibid.; see also Levchuk v. Jovich, 372 N.J.Super. 149, 156-57 , 855 A. 2d 635 (Law Div.2004). 2010In other words, the action on an accounting in probate is a vehicle for addressing "the conduct of the executor, not the conduct of others." Ibid.; see also Levchuk v. Jovich, 372 N.J.Super. 149, 156-57 , 855 A. 2d 635 (Law Div.2004). | 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. Henderson
green
2 sentences2020Under the third step, the defendant bears the ultimate burden at the hearing "to prove a very substantial likelihood of irreparable A-4644-17T1 16 misidentification." Ibid. 2020Under the third step, the defendant bears the ultimate burden at the hearing "to prove a very substantial likelihood of irreparable A-4644-17T1 16 misidentification." Ibid. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
Perry v. Tuzzio
green
2 sentences2010The question is whether an exceptant to an accounting is obliged in that summary proceeding to join all persons, uninvolved as they may be in the probate proceeding, who have any transactional relationship to the subject of the exception irrespective of the nature of that relationship, irrespective of a right to jury trial and full discovery which any such person might have, and irrespective of the burden such a requirement may impose on the orderly procedure for the administration of decedent's estate. [ Ibid. ] Having recognized the differences between the application of the entire controv 2010The question is whether an exceptant to an accounting is obliged in that summary proceeding to join all persons, uninvolved as they may be in the probate proceeding, who have any transactional relationship to the subject of the exception irrespective of the nature of that relationship, irrespective of a right to jury trial and full discovery which any such person might have, and irrespective of the burden such a requirement may impose on the orderly procedure for the administration of decedent's estate. [ Ibid. ] Having recognized the differences between the application of the entire controv | 2 | 1997–2010 |
State v. Rush
green
2 sentences1992The record simply fails to demonstrate what we posited in Rush as necessary for such an attack to succeed, namely, that “the burden on the bar [has] reach[ed] such proportions as to give the due process argument a force” it did not then have. 2 *601 Rush, supra, 46 N.J. at 408 , 217 A.2d 441 . 1992The record simply fails to demonstrate what we posited in Rush as necessary for such an attack to succeed, namely, that “the burden on the bar [has] reach[ed] such proportions as to give the due process argument a force” it did not then have. 2 *601 Rush, supra, 46 N.J. at 408 , 217 A.2d 441 . | 2 | 1990–1992 |
Hensley v. Eckerhart
green
1 sentence2020"In a statutory fee case," such as this one, "the party opposing the fee award then has the burden to challenge, by affidavit or brief with sufficient specificity to give fee applicants notice, the reasonableness of the requested fee." Ibid. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Courier News v. HUNTERDON
green
2 sentences2014Id. at 547 , 876 A.2d 806 . *178 Thus, both State and federal authority differentiate between liability arising from county prosecutor’s law enforcement functions, for which the State is generally required to assume the burden of defense and indemnification, and liability derived from the prosecutor’s administrative functions, which is deemed to be the county’s responsibility. 2014Id. at 547 , 876 A.2d 806 . *178 Thus, both State and federal authority differentiate between liability arising from county prosecutor’s law enforcement functions, for which the State is generally required to assume the burden of defense and indemnification, and liability derived from the prosecutor’s administrative functions, which is deemed to be the county’s responsibility. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Pantasote Co. v. City of Passaic
green
2 sentences2005In the absence of any evidence that the amount of the assessment was “far wide of the mark,” Pantasote, supra, 100 N.J. at 414-15 , 495 A.2d 1308 , an attack on the Director’s methodology is insufficient to overcome the burden of the presumption that the assessment is correct. 2005In the absence of any evidence that the amount of the assessment was “far wide of the mark,” Pantasote, supra, 100 N.J. at 414-15 , 495 A.2d 1308 , an attack on the Director’s methodology is insufficient to overcome the burden of the presumption that the assessment is correct. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Galligan v. Westfield Centre Service, Inc.
green
1 sentence2001Galligan v. Westfield Centre Service, Inc., 82 N.J. *56 188, 192, 412 A. 2d 122 (1980). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Wilson
green
1 sentence1985Ibid. | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Moyant v. Borough of Paramus
green
2 sentences1976Moyant, supra 30 N.J. at 535 ; Elizabeth, supra 100 N.J. 1976Moyant, supra 30 N.J. at 535 ; Elizabeth, supra 100 N.J. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
City of Elizabeth v. Sullivan
green
2 sentences1976Moyant, supra 30 N.J. at 535 ; Elizabeth, supra 100 N.J. 1976Moyant, supra 30 N.J. at 535 ; Elizabeth, supra 100 N.J. | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Frazer v. Western
green
1 sentence1914The following cases will be found to sustain the views here suggested: McKee v. West, 141 Ala. 531 ; Frazer v. Western, 1 Barb. | 1 | 1914–1914 |
McKee v. West
neutral
1 sentence1914The following cases will be found to sustain the views here suggested: McKee v. West, 141 Ala. 531 ; Frazer v. Western, 1 Barb. | 1 | 1914–1914 |
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.