prosecutorial error in New Jersey

92 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2026 27 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.

Followed or applied (16)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Bendergreen nj · 1979 · cited in 67 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 1984–2026 2 sentences 2026In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of "patent and gross," it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying Pretrial Intervention. [State v. Roseman, 221 N.J. 611, 625 (2015) (omission in original) (quoting State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84, 93 (1979)).] A-3333-24 7 In State v. Mickens, we succinctly described the task at hand: [T]he appellate court must distinguish between prosecutorial abuse consisting of the failure to consider all relevant factors specific to the individual candidate and prosecutorial abuse re 2025"In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of 'patent and gross,' it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying [PTI]." Ibid. (quoting Bender, 80 N.J. at 93 ).	37	67
State v. Wallacegreen nj · 1996 · cited in 22 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2003–2024 2 sentences 2024In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of "patent and gross," it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying [PTI]. [State v. Roseman, 221 N.J. at 625 (quoting State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84, 93 (1979)).] "A patent and gross abuse of discretion is defined as a decision that 'has gone so wide of the mark sought to be accomplished by PTI that fundamental fairness and justice require judicial intervention.'" Watkins, 193 N.J. at 520 A-1460-23 10 (quoting Wallace, 146 N.J. at 582-83 ). 2022To establish an abuse of prosecutorial discretion, a defendant must demonstrate that a prosecutorial veto (a) was not premised upon a consideration of all relevant factors, (b) was based upon a consideration of irrelevant or inappropriate factors, or (c) amounted to a clear error in judgment[.] In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of 'patent and gross,' it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying [PTI]. [State v. Roseman, 221 N.J. 611, 625 (2015) (quoting State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84, 93 (1979)).] "A pate	9	22
State v. William Roseman and Lori Lewin (073674)green nj · 2015 · cited in 31 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2017–2026 2 sentences 2026In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of "patent and gross," it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying Pretrial Intervention. [State v. Roseman, 221 N.J. 611, 625 (2015) (omission in original) (quoting State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84, 93 (1979)).] A-3333-24 7 In State v. Mickens, we succinctly described the task at hand: [T]he appellate court must distinguish between prosecutorial abuse consisting of the failure to consider all relevant factors specific to the individual candidate and prosecutorial abuse re 2025"In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of 'patent and gross,' it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying [PTI]." Roseman, 221 N.J. at 625 (quoting Bender, 80 N.J. at 93 ).	8	31
State v. Kraftgreen njsuperctappdiv · 1993 · cited in 7 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2018–2026 2 sentences 2026"Indeed, '[i]n order for . . . an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of "patent and gross," it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying [PTI].'" Ibid. (first alteration and omission in original) (quoting Bender, 80 N.J. at 93 ).5 "The extreme deference which a prosecutor's decision is entitled to in this context translates into a heavy burden which must be borne by a defendant when seeking to overcome a prosecutorial veto of his [or her] admission into PTI." State v. Kraft, 265 N.J. 2019In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of "patent and gross," it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying Pretrial Intervention. [Id. at 129 (quoting Roseman, 221 N.J. at 625 ).] "A reviewing court 'does not have the authority in PTI matters to substitute [its own] discretion for that of the prosecutor.'" State v. Nwobu, 139 N.J. 236, 253 (1995) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Kraft, 265 N.J.	7	7
State v. Dalglishgreen nj · 1981 · cited in 8 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 1996–2023 2 sentences 2017In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of "patent and gross," it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying Pretrial Intervention. [ 80 N.J. 84, 93 (1979) (citations omitted).] Furthermore, "[a]bsent evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the prosecutor considered all relevant factors before rendering a decision." State v. Dalglish, 86 N.J. 503, 509 (1981); see Wallace, supra, 146 N.J. at 584 ("We presume that a prosecutor considered all relevant factors, absent a demonstration by the defendant to the 2017In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of 'patent and gross,' it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying Pretrial Intervention. [Id. at 583 (citations omitted).] Additionally, if a "reviewing court determines that the 'prosecutor's decision was arbitrary, irrational, or otherwise an 10 A-0611-15T3 abuse of discretion, but not a patent and gross abuse' of discretion, the reviewing court may remand to the prosecutor for further consideration." State v. K.S., 220 N.J. 190, 200 (2015) (quoting Dalglish, supra	4	8
State v. Ridgwaygreen njsuperctappdiv · 1985 · cited in 4 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 1996–2019 2 sentences 2019A-0893-18T3 9 In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of 'patent and gross,' it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying [PTI]. [Id. at [93] (citation omitted).] [Wallace, 146 N.J. at 582-83 (citation omitted) (first quoting State v. Leonardis, 73 N.J. 360, 382 (1977); then quoting State v. Ridgway, 208 N.J. 1996In State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84 , 402 A.2d 217 (1979), we elaborated on the patent and gross abuse of discretion standard: Ordinarily an abuse of discretion will be manifest if defendant can show that a prosecutorial veto (a) was not premised upon a consideration of all relevant factors, (b) was based upon a consideration of irrelevant or inappropriate factors, or (c) amounted to a clear error in judgment____ In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of ‘patent and gross,’ it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will cleai'ly subvert the goals und	4	4
State v. Davon M. Johnson (080394) (Essex County and Statewide)green nj · 2019 · cited in 6 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2019–2024 2 sentences 2024In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of “patent and gross,” it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying Pretrial Intervention. [State v. Johnson, 238 N.J. 119, 129 (2019)] In State v. Mickens, we succinctly described the task at hand: A-3656-22 8 [T]he appellate court must distinguish between prosecutorial abuse consisting of the failure to consider all relevant factors specific to the individual candidate and prosecutorial abuse represented by a judgment reached after a full consideration. 2024In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of “patent and gross,” it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying Pretrial Intervention. [State v. Johnson, 238 N.J. 119, 129 (2019)] In State v. Mickens, we succinctly described the task at hand: A-1311-23 13 [T]he appellate court must distinguish between prosecutorial abuse consisting of the failure to consider all relevant factors specific to the individual candidate and prosecutorial abuse represented by a judgment reached after a full consideration.	3	6
State v. Negrangreen nj · 2003 · cited in 3 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2017–2024 2 sentences 2017In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of "patent and gross," it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying Pretrial Intervention. [State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84, 93 (1979) (citation omitted); see also Negran, supra, 178 N.J. at 83 .] Here, we affirm the trial court's decision to deny defendant's entry into PTI. 2017In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of "patent and gross," it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying Pretrial Intervention. [State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84, 93 (1979) (citation omitted); see also Negran, supra, 178 N.J. at 83 .] Here, we affirm the trial court's decision to deny defendant's entry into PTI.	3	3
State v. Nwobugreen nj · 1995 · cited in 11 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 1995–2026 2 sentences 2026"Indeed, '[i]n order for . . . an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of "patent and gross," it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying [PTI].'" Ibid. (first alteration and omission in original) (quoting Bender, 80 N.J. at 93 ).5 "The extreme deference which a prosecutor's decision is entitled to in this context translates into a heavy burden which must be borne by a defendant when seeking to overcome a prosecutorial veto of his [or her] admission into PTI." State v. Kraft, 265 N.J. 2024In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of "patent and gross," it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of A-0676-22 11 will clearly subvert the goals underlying Pretrial Intervention. [State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84, 93 (1979) (citation omitted).] "The question is not whether [a court would] agree or disagree with the prosecutor's decision, but whether the prosecutor's decision could not have been reasonably made upon weighing the relevant factors." Nwobu, 139 N.J. at 254 .	2	11
State of New Jersey v. Antwain T. Watersgreen njsuperctappdiv · 2015 · cited in 2 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 2 sentences 2017"We must apply the same standard as the trial court," and review the "judge's reversal of the prosecutor's decision de novo." State v. Waters, 439 N.J. 2017State v. Waters, 439 N.J.	2	2
State v. Baynesgreen nj · 1997 · cited in 2 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2003–2012 2 sentences 2012In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of “patent and gross,” it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying Pretrial Intervention. [State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84, 93 , 402 A.2d 217 (1979) (citation omitted); see also State v. Baynes, 148 N.J. 434, 444 , 690 A.2d 594 (1997) (same).] The abuse of discretion standard has been applied to review of a prosecutor’s decision to seek a mandatory extended-term sentence, State v. Lagares, 127 N.J. 20, 33 , 601 A.2d 698 (1992); a prosecutor’s determination on whether to w 2012In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of “patent and gross,” it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying Pretrial Intervention. [State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84, 93 , 402 A.2d 217 (1979) (citation omitted); see also State v. Baynes, 148 N.J. 434, 444 , 690 A.2d 594 (1997) (same).] The abuse of discretion standard has been applied to review of a prosecutor’s decision to seek a mandatory extended-term sentence, State v. Lagares, 127 N.J. 20, 33 , 601 A.2d 698 (1992); a prosecutor’s determination on whether to w	2	2
State v. Leonardisgreen nj · 1977 · cited in 2 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2011–2019 2 sentences 2019A-0893-18T3 9 In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of 'patent and gross,' it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying [PTI]. [Id. at [93] (citation omitted).] [Wallace, 146 N.J. at 582-83 (citation omitted) (first quoting State v. Leonardis, 73 N.J. 360, 382 (1977); then quoting State v. Ridgway, 208 N.J. 2011For a prosecutor's abuse of discretion, "to rise to the level of `patent and gross,' it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying Pretrial Intervention." Bender, supra, 80 N.J. at 93 , 402 A. 2d 217 (quoting State v. Leonardis, 73 N.J. 360, 382 , 375 A. 2d 607 (1977)).	1	2
State of New Jersey v. Steven Rizzitellogreen njsuperctappdiv · 2016 · cited in 2 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2017–2018 2 sentences 2018A-5488-16T3 7 [Rizzitello, 447 N.J. 2017In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of patent and gross, it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying Pretrial Intervention. [Rizzitello, supra, 447 N.J.	1	2
State v. Lagaresgreen nj · 1992 · cited in 2 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 1992–2012 2 sentences 2012In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of “patent and gross,” it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying Pretrial Intervention. [State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84, 93 , 402 A.2d 217 (1979) (citation omitted); see also State v. Baynes, 148 N.J. 434, 444 , 690 A.2d 594 (1997) (same).] The abuse of discretion standard has been applied to review of a prosecutor’s decision to seek a mandatory extended-term sentence, State v. Lagares, 127 N.J. 20, 33 , 601 A.2d 698 (1992); a prosecutor’s determination on whether to w 2012In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of “patent and gross,” it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying Pretrial Intervention. [State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84, 93 , 402 A.2d 217 (1979) (citation omitted); see also State v. Baynes, 148 N.J. 434, 444 , 690 A.2d 594 (1997) (same).] The abuse of discretion standard has been applied to review of a prosecutor’s decision to seek a mandatory extended-term sentence, State v. Lagares, 127 N.J. 20, 33 , 601 A.2d 698 (1992); a prosecutor’s determination on whether to w	1	2
State v. Hoffmangreen njsuperctappdiv · 2008 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2019–2019 1 sentence 2019Super. 106, 112 (App. Div. 1993)); accord State v. Hoffman, 399 N.J.	1	1
State v. K.S.green nj · 2015 · cited in 1 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 1 sentence 2017In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of 'patent and gross,' it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying Pretrial Intervention. [Id. at 583 (citations omitted).] Additionally, if a "reviewing court determines that the 'prosecutor's decision was arbitrary, irrational, or otherwise an 10 A-0611-15T3 abuse of discretion, but not a patent and gross abuse' of discretion, the reviewing court may remand to the prosecutor for further consideration." State v. K.S., 220 N.J. 190, 200 (2015) (quoting Dalglish, supra	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (1)

Case	Negative	Cited
State v. Lagaresgreen nj · 1992 · cited in 2 New Jersey opinions naming this issue, 1992–2012 2 sentences 2012In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of “patent and gross,” it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying Pretrial Intervention. [State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84, 93 , 402 A.2d 217 (1979) (citation omitted); see also State v. Baynes, 148 N.J. 434, 444 , 690 A.2d 594 (1997) (same).] The abuse of discretion standard has been applied to review of a prosecutor’s decision to seek a mandatory extended-term sentence, State v. Lagares, 127 N.J. 20, 33 , 601 A.2d 698 (1992); a prosecutor’s determination on whether to w 2012In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of “patent and gross,” it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying Pretrial Intervention. [State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84, 93 , 402 A.2d 217 (1979) (citation omitted); see also State v. Baynes, 148 N.J. 434, 444 , 690 A.2d 594 (1997) (same).] The abuse of discretion standard has been applied to review of a prosecutor’s decision to seek a mandatory extended-term sentence, State v. Lagares, 127 N.J. 20, 33 , 601 A.2d 698 (1992); a prosecutor’s determination on whether to w	1	2

Also cited on this issue (12)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Watkins green nj · 2008 2 sentences 2024In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of "patent and gross," it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying [PTI]. [State v. Roseman, 221 N.J. at 625 (quoting State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84, 93 (1979)).] "A patent and gross abuse of discretion is defined as a decision that 'has gone so wide of the mark sought to be accomplished by PTI that fundamental fairness and justice require judicial intervention.'" Watkins, 193 N.J. at 520 A-1460-23 10 (quoting Wallace, 146 N.J. at 582-83 ). 2023A patent and gross abuse of discretion occurs when "the [PTI] denial[:] '(a) was not premised upon a consideration of all relevant factors, (b) was based upon a consideration of irrelevant or inappropriate factors, or (c) amounted to a clear error in judgment.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84, 93 (1979)). "[F]or such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of 'patent and gross,' it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying [PTI]." Roseman, 221 N.J. at 625 (quoting Bender, 80 N.J. at 93 ).	9	2020–2025
State v. Todd green njsuperctappdiv · 1990 2 sentences 2021Stern aptly recognized that because "there is the prospect of discriminatory decisions, and because we construe the statute as imposing a prosecutorial standard, 'we cannot imagine that the Legislature meant to oust the courts of the right and opportunity to examine whether such a decision exceeds the permitted 'prosecutorial influence on the sentencing determination'." Id. at 148 (quoting State v. Todd, 238 N.J. 1991But there is the prospect of discriminatory decisions, and because we construe the statute as imposing a prosecutorial standard, "we cannot imagine that the Legislature meant to oust the courts of the right and opportunity to examine whether such a decision exceeds the permitted `prosecutorial influence on the sentencing determination'." See State v. Todd, supra, 238 N.J.	2	1991–2021
State v. Hermann green nj · 1979 2 sentences 2019An abuse of discretion is "manifest if defendant can show that a prosecutorial veto (a) was not premised upon a consideration of all relevant factors, (b) was based upon a consideration of irrelevant or inappropriate factors, or (c) amounted to a clear error in judgment." Wallace, 146 N.J. at 583 (quoting Bender, 80 N.J. at 93 ). "[I]t must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying [PTI]." Bender, 80 N.J. at 93 . 2019An abuse of discretion is "manifest if defendant can show that a prosecutorial veto (a) was not premised upon a consideration of all relevant factors, (b) was based upon a consideration of irrelevant or inappropriate factors, or (c) amounted to a clear error in judgment." Wallace, 146 N.J. at 583 (quoting Bender, 80 N.J. at 93 ). "[I]t must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying [PTI]." Bender, 80 N.J. at 93 .	2	2006–2019
State v. Maddocks green nj · 1979 1 sentence 2026"Indeed, '[i]n order for . . . an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of "patent and gross," it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying [PTI].'" Ibid. (first alteration and omission in original) (quoting Bender, 80 N.J. at 93 ).5 "The extreme deference which a prosecutor's decision is entitled to in this context translates into a heavy burden which must be borne by a defendant when seeking to overcome a prosecutorial veto of his [or her] admission into PTI." State v. Kraft, 265 N.J.	1	2026–2026
State v. Alvarez green njsuperctappdiv · 1991 1 sentence 2021Stern aptly recognized that because "there is the prospect of discriminatory decisions, and because we construe the statute as imposing a prosecutorial standard, 'we cannot imagine that the Legislature meant to oust the courts of the right and opportunity to examine whether such a decision exceeds the permitted 'prosecutorial influence on the sentencing determination'." Id. at 148 (quoting State v. Todd, 238 N.J.	1	2021–2021
State v. Watson green njsuperctappdiv · 2002 1 sentence 2015Super. 521 (App. Div. 2002), a Graves Act case, we referenced the sentence options when a prosecutorial waiver is granted: "a reduced mandatory minimum term of one year, or to place the defendant on probation with the condition of a jail term pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2C:43-2b(2)." Id. at 535 .	1	2015–2015
State v. Vasquez green nj · 1992 2 sentences 2012In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of “patent and gross,” it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying Pretrial Intervention. [State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84, 93 , 402 A.2d 217 (1979) (citation omitted); see also State v. Baynes, 148 N.J. 434, 444 , 690 A.2d 594 (1997) (same).] The abuse of discretion standard has been applied to review of a prosecutor’s decision to seek a mandatory extended-term sentence, State v. Lagares, 127 N.J. 20, 33 , 601 A.2d 698 (1992); a prosecutor’s determination on whether to w 2012In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of “patent and gross,” it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert the goals underlying Pretrial Intervention. [State v. Bender, 80 N.J. 84, 93 , 402 A.2d 217 (1979) (citation omitted); see also State v. Baynes, 148 N.J. 434, 444 , 690 A.2d 594 (1997) (same).] The abuse of discretion standard has been applied to review of a prosecutor’s decision to seek a mandatory extended-term sentence, State v. Lagares, 127 N.J. 20, 33 , 601 A.2d 698 (1992); a prosecutor’s determination on whether to w	1	2012–2012
Flagg v. Essex County Prosecutor green nj · 2002 2 sentences 2012Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561, 571 , 796 A.2d 182 (2002). 2012Prosecutor, 171 N.J. 561, 571 , 796 A.2d 182 (2002).	1	2012–2012
State v. Brooks green nj · 2002 1 sentence 2003Id. at 225-26 , 814 A. 2d 1051 ; see also, e.g., State v. Baynes, 148 N.J. 434, 445 , 690 A. 2d 594 (1997); State v. Wallace, 146 N.J. 576, 581-86 , 684 A. 2d 1355 (1996); State v. Nwobu, 139 N.J. 236, 253-54 , 652 A. 2d 1209 (1995).	1	2003–2003
State v. DeMarco green nj · 1987 2 sentences 1995State v. DeMarco, 107 N.J. 562, 567 , 527 A. 2d 417 (1987). 1995State v. DeMarco, 107 N.J. 562, 567 , 527 A. 2d 417 (1987).	1	1995–1995
Counselman v. Hitchcock green scotus · 1892 2 sentences 1988While this form of immunity was commonly provided, in Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547 , 12 S.Ct. 195 , 35 L.Ed. 1110 (1892), the Supreme Court specifically invalidated a statute providing only direct-use immunity because it was not considered sufficiently protective of the privilege against self-incrimination. 1988While this form of immunity was commonly provided, in Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547 , 12 S.Ct. 195 , 35 L.Ed. 1110 (1892), the Supreme Court specifically invalidated a statute providing only direct-use immunity because it was not considered sufficiently protective of the privilege against self-incrimination.	1	1988–1988
State v. Maguire green njsuperctappdiv · 1979 1 sentence 1985In order for such an abuse of discretion to rise to the level of "patent and gross" it must further be shown that the prosecutorial error complained of will clearly subvert goals of Pretrial Intervention. [at 93] State v. Maguire, 168 N.J.	1	1985–1985

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NJ § N.J. Stat. § 2C:43-12 (68) NJ § N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-5 (17) NJ § N.J. Stat. § 2C:12-1 (12) NJ § N.J. Stat. § 2C:20-3 (9) NJ § N.J. Stat. § 2C:44-1 (9) NJ § N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-4 (8) NJ § N.J. Stat. § 2C:5-2 (8) NJ § N.J. Stat. § 2C:43-6 (7) NJ § N.J. Stat. § 2C:24-4 (6) NJ § N.J. Stat. § 2C:35-10 (6) NJ § N.J. Stat. § 2C:39-3 (6) NJ § N.J. Stat. § 2C:29-2 (5)

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.

Where else courts name it

NJ 92 (1984–2026) KS 74 (1988–2026) CA 50 (1983–2026) MI 38 (1978–2026) IA 23 (2012–2024) AZ 19 (2015–2026) TX 16 (1982–2022) MT 12 (1976–2024) MN 11 (1986–2023) NY 9 (1975–2013) ME 8 (1982–2026) MA 7 (1979–2014) OH 6 (1999–2021) IL 6 (1979–2021) CT 6 (1991–2014) MD 6 (1997–2021) AL 5 (1975–1990) FL 5 (1984–2006) NH 4 (1987–2009) MS 4 (1996–2010) GA 4 (1985–2012) WA 4 (1989–2024) TN 3 (1999–2018) OR 3 (1980–2022) DC 3 (1986–2024) NC 2 (1987–2001) WY 2 (1990–1991) PA 2 (1980–1981) CO 2 (1989–1995) RI 2 (2001–2020) KY 2 (2002–2025) LA 2 (1980–1999) SC 2 (2001–2018)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check