95 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2026 34 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 |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2026Under the first prong of this test, the defendant must demonstrate that "counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 . 2026Under the first prong of this test, the defendant must demonstrate that "counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 . | 6 | 41 |
State v. Fritzgreen2 sentences2025Under the first prong of this test, the defendant must demonstrate that "counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the 'counsel' guaranteed the A-3007-22 8 defendant by the Sixth Amendment." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 ; Fritz, 105 N.J. at 52 . 2025After hearing testimony from defendant and his plea counsel, the PCR court on remand held defendant had failed to establish plea counsel's performance was deficient under the first prong of the standard articulated by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), and adopted under our State Constitution by the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987). | 4 | 10 |
State v. James W. Robinson (070556)green2 sentences2022State v. Robinson, 217 N.J. 594, 604 (2014). 2017State v. Robinson, 217 N.J. 594, 603-04 (2014). | 2 | 2 |
cluster 489293green2 sentences2000Nieves v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp., 819 F. 2d 1237, 1247 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 963 , 108 S.Ct. 452 , 98 L.Ed. 2d 392 (1987). 2000Nieves v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp., 819 F.2d 1237, 1247 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 963 , 108 S.Ct. 452 , 98 L.Ed.2d 392 (1987). | 2 | 2 |
Lehmann v. Toys 'R' US, Inc.green2 sentences2023As earlier noted, in Lehmann we explicitly held that “[w]hen the harassing conduct is sexual . . . in nature,” the first prong of a claim for hostile-environment sexual harassment, which asks whether the harassing conduct occurred because of sex, or “would not have occurred but for” the person’s sex, “will automatically be satisfied.” 132 N.J. at 605 (emphasis added). 2023We made clear that “when a plaintiff alleges that she has been subjected to sexual touchings . . . she has established that the harassment occurred because of her sex.” Ibid. | 1 | 3 |
In Re the Guardianship of K.H.O.green2 sentences2013With regard to the first prong of the test, which addresses the child’s safety, the Division must prove harm that “threatens the child’s health and will likely have continuing deleterious effects on the child.” K.H.O., supra, 161 N.J. at 352, 736 A.2d 1246 . 2013With regard to the first prong of the test, which addresses the child’s safety, the Division must prove harm that “threatens the child’s health and will likely have continuing deleterious effects on the child.” K.H.O., supra, 161 N.J. at 352, 736 A.2d 1246 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Buckleygreen2 sentences2025"Under the first prong of that test, the statute predicates a finding of causation upon proof that 'the actual result' was 'within the risk of which the actor is aware.'" Ibid. (quoting N.J.S.A. 2C:2-3(c)). 2020See id. at 267-68 . | 1 | 2 |
Gibbons v. Gibbonsgreen2 sentences2022Under the first prong of that test, there are three circumstances that will justify the retroactive application of a statute: (1) the Legislature provided for retroactivity expressly, either in the language of the statute itself or its legislative history, or implicitly, by requiring retroactive effect to "make the statute workable or to A-0196-20 5 give it the most sensible interpretation"; (2) "the statute is ameliorative or curative"; or (3) the parties' expectations warrant retroactive application. [J.V., 242 N.J. at 444 (quoting Gibbons v. Gibbons, 86 N.J. 515, 522-23 (1981)).] An amelior 2021Under the first prong of the test, we evaluate whether the Legislature provided for retroactivity expressly, either in the language of the statute itself or its legislative history, or implicitly, by requiring retroactive effect to "make the statute workable or to give it the most sensible interpretation." Gibbons, 86 N.J. at 522 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Castagnagreen2 sentences2018The first prong of the test is satisfied by showing counsel's acts or omissions fell outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance considered in light of all 9 A-0956-16T3 the circumstances of the case." State v. Allegro, 193 N.J. 352, 366 (2008) (quoting State v. Castagna, 187 N.J. 293, 314 (2006)). "[T]here is 'a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.'" Castagna, 187 N.J. at 314 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 ). 2018The first prong of the test is satisfied by showing counsel's acts or omissions fell outside the wide range of professionally competent assistance considered in light of all 9 A-0956-16T3 the circumstances of the case." State v. Allegro, 193 N.J. 352, 366 (2008) (quoting State v. Castagna, 187 N.J. 293, 314 (2006)). "[T]here is 'a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.'" Castagna, 187 N.J. at 314 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 ). | 1 | 2 |
Moper Transp., Inc. v. Norbet Trucking Corp.green2 sentences2008Rowe, supra, 189 N.J. at 621 , 917 A.2d 767 ; Fu v. Fu, 160 N.J. 108, 118 , 733 A.2d 1133 (1999); Moper, supra, 399 N.J.Super. at 153, 943 A.2d 873 . 2008Rowe, supra, 189 N.J. at 621 , 917 A.2d 767 ; Fu v. Fu, 160 N.J. 108, 118 , 733 A.2d 1133 (1999); Moper, supra, 399 N.J.Super. at 153, 943 A.2d 873 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Nunez-Valdezgreen1 sentence2025Where a PCR petition arises from a plea bargain, "a defendant must prove that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, [he or she] would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial." State v. Gaitan, 209 N.J. 339, 351 (2012) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Nuñez- Valdéz, 200 N.J. 129, 139 (2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Contest of November 8, 2011 General Election of Office of New Jersey General Assembly, Fourth Legislative Districtgreen1 sentence2025Where a PCR petition arises from a plea bargain, "a defendant must prove that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel's errors, [he or she] would not have pled guilty and would have insisted on going to trial." State v. Gaitan, 209 N.J. 339, 351 (2012) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Nuñez- Valdéz, 200 N.J. 129, 139 (2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
STEPHEN D. PERRY VS. NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD (NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD)green1 sentence2022State Parole Bd., 459 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Brentgreen1 sentence2021In his April 8, 2019 oral decision, the judge reviewed N.J.S.A. 2C:1- 8(e), stating, "The [c]ourt shall not charge the jury with respect to an included offense unless there is a rational basis for a verdict convicting the defendant of the included offense." He then stated that he "interpreted the statute as requiring satisfaction of a two-part test." Under the first prong of the test, "to charge a jury on an unindicted offense, the [c]ourt must conclude . . . that the offense is included in the charged offense." Under the second prong, "the [c]ourt must conclude . . . that the evidence at tria | 1 | 1 |
State v. Taccettagreen1 sentence2020In the context of ineffective assistance related to a plea, the second prong requires a defendant to "'show that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense.'" State v. Taccetta, 200 N.J. 183, 193 (2009) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Woods-Pirozzi v. Nabisco Foodsgreen1 sentence2019For example, in Woods-Pirozzi v. Nabisco Foods, 290 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
| Suppan v. Dadonnagreen | 1 | 1 |
| James Hitesman v. Bridgeway, Inc. (072466)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Allegrogreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Sheikagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Terry v. Ohiogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Allied-Signal, Inc. Ex Rel. Bendix Corp. v. Director, Division of Taxationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Texas v. Browngreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Samuel Lee Clarkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Lessliegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Frank's Gmc Truck Center, Inc. v. General Motors Corporationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuitgreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Li Fu v. Hong Fu
green
2 sentences2008Rowe, supra, 189 N.J. at 621 , 917 A.2d 767 ; Fu v. Fu, 160 N.J. 108, 118 , 733 A.2d 1133 (1999); Moper, supra, 399 N.J.Super. at 153, 943 A.2d 873 . 2008Rowe, supra, 189 N.J. at 621 , 917 A.2d 767 ; Fu v. Fu, 160 N.J. 108, 118 , 733 A.2d 1133 (1999); Moper, supra, 399 N.J.Super. at 153, 943 A.2d 873 . | 3 | 2007–2008 |
International Schools Services, Inc. v. West Windsor Township
green
2 sentences2010Id. at 386, 388-89, 886 A.2d 204 . 2010Id. at 386, 388-89, 886 A. 2d 204 . | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Rowe v. Hoffman-La Roche, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008Rowe, supra, 189 N.J. at 621 , 917 A.2d 767 ; Fu v. Fu, 160 N.J. 108, 118 , 733 A.2d 1133 (1999); Moper, supra, 399 N.J.Super. at 153, 943 A.2d 873 . 2008Rowe, supra, 189 N.J. at 621 , 917 A.2d 767 ; Fu v. Fu, 160 N.J. 108, 118 , 733 A.2d 1133 (1999); Moper, supra, 399 N.J.Super. at 153, 943 A.2d 873 . | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Buckelew v. Grossbard
green
2 sentences2007The res ipsa loquitur doctrine establishes a " prima facie case by permitting the jury to infer negligence." Buckelew, supra, 87 N.J. at 526 , 435 A. 2d 1150 . 2007The res ipsa loquitur doctrine establishes a " prima facie case by permitting the jury to infer negligence." Buckelew, supra, 87 N.J. at 526 , 435 A. 2d 1150 . | 2 | 1995–2007 |
State v. Fisher
green
2 sentences2002Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. at 2068 , 80 L.Ed. 2d at 698 ; Fisher, supra, 156 N.J. at 500 , 721 A. 2d at 294 ; Fritz, supra, 105 N.J. at 52 , 519 A. 2d 336 . 2002Strickland, supra, 466 U.S. at 694 , 104 S.Ct. at 2068 , 80 L.Ed. 2d at 698 ; Fisher, supra, 156 N.J. at 500 , 721 A. 2d at 294 ; Fritz, supra, 105 N.J. at 52 , 519 A. 2d 336 . | 2 | 2000–2002 |
Adkins v. Seaboard System Railroad
green
2 sentences2000Nieves v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp., 819 F. 2d 1237, 1247 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 963 , 108 S.Ct. 452 , 98 L.Ed. 2d 392 (1987). 2000Nieves v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp., 819 F.2d 1237, 1247 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 963 , 108 S.Ct. 452 , 98 L.Ed.2d 392 (1987). | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Hancich v. Gopoian
green
2 sentences2000Nieves v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp., 819 F. 2d 1237, 1247 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 963 , 108 S.Ct. 452 , 98 L.Ed. 2d 392 (1987). 2000Nieves v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp., 819 F.2d 1237, 1247 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 963 , 108 S.Ct. 452 , 98 L.Ed.2d 392 (1987). | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Ofshe v. United States
green
2 sentences2000Nieves v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp., 819 F. 2d 1237, 1247 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 963 , 108 S.Ct. 452 , 98 L.Ed. 2d 392 (1987). 2000Nieves v. Hess Oil Virgin Islands Corp., 819 F.2d 1237, 1247 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 963 , 108 S.Ct. 452 , 98 L.Ed.2d 392 (1987). | 2 | 2000–2000 |
Silver v. Silver
green
1 sentence2026The court "disregard[ed] all of [C.B.]'s testimony regarding the predicate acts" and determined C.B. failed to satisfy the first prong of the analysis under Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Marshall
green
1 sentence2025In other words, a defendant must show counsel's performance fell below "an objective standard of reasonableness." State v. Marshall, 148 N.J. 89 , 156- 57 (1997) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Smith
green
1 sentence2022Moreover, this affidavit fails the first prong of the test laid out in [State v. Smith, 29 N.J. 561 (1959)] as it is impeaching and contradictory. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Crawford v. Washington
green
1 sentence2021Crawford identified “formulations of [the] core class of testimonial statements,” including “material such as affidavits . . . that the defendant was unable to cross-examine, or similar pretrial statements that declarants would reasonably expect to be used prosecutorially” or “at a later trial.” Id. at 51-52 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Sarzillo v. Turner Construction Co.
green
1 sentence2021The second prong of the test set forth in N.J.S.A. 34:15-7 requires a court to determine whether the social or recreational activity “produce[d] a benefit to the employer beyond improvement in employee health and morale.” Sarzillo, 101 N.J. at 115 (quoting N.J.S.A. 34:15-7). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Carter v. Reynolds
green
1 sentence2020The first prong of the standard is centered on the relationship of the parties. 5 Ibid. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Board Of Trustees Of Trucking Employees Of North Jersey Welfare Fund, Inc.--Pension Fund v. Centra green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Delaware River Port Authority v. Fraternal Order of Police green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Dzwonar v. McDevitt green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Matter of DC green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State, Dept. of Environ. Protect. v. Ventron Corp. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Frankel green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| MacDougall v. Weichert green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Delibero green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Mehlman v. Mobil Oil Corp. green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Garcia green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| ASARCO Inc. v. Idaho State Tax Commission green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Board green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Williams green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Twiss v. State, Dept. of Treasury green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Olkusz v. Brown green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Bornstein v. Metropolitan Bottling Co., Inc. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Johnson green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Planned Parenthood v. Farmer green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Schneider v. American Hockey and Ice Skating Center green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. DiFrisco green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| State v. Cofield green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| State v. Hempele green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Medford v. Duggan green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Lesniak v. County of Bergen green | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Solem v. Stumes green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
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.