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.
13 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1984–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Polzo v. County of Essexgreen2 sentences2025As such, "unsubstantiated expert testimony cannot provide to the factfinder . . . a qualified specialist's reliable analysis of an issue 'beyond the ken of the average juror.'" Ibid. (quoting Polzo, 196 N.J. at 582 ). 2025Super. 563, 580 (App. Div. 1997)). "[U]nsubstantiated expert testimony cannot provide to the factfinder the benefit that N.J.R.E. 702 envisions: a qualified specialist's reliable analysis of an issue 'beyond the ken of the average juror.'" Ibid. (quoting Polzo v. Cnty. of Essex, 196 N.J. 569, 582 (2008)). | 2 | 5 |
Deborah Townsend v. Noah Pierre (072357)green1 sentence2019The Townsend Court warned against the admission of unsubstantiated expert testimony [because it] cannot provide to the factfinder the benefit that N.J.R.E. 702 A-1113-17T4 19 envisions: a qualified specialist's reliable analysis of an issue "beyond the ken of the average juror." Given the weight that a jury may accord to expert testimony, a trial court must ensure that an expert is not permitted to express speculative opinions or personal views that are unfounded in the record. [ 221 N.J. at 55 (citations omitted).] Michelson failed to connect any facts in the record involving NJT's or Associa | 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. Owens
green
2 sentences2010State v. Owens, 54 N.J. 153 , 254 A.2d 97 (1969); In re Yengo, 84 N.J. 111 , 417 A.2d 533 (1980). 1999The Court in Owens held that “the severity of the authorized punishment is the only reliable test.” Id. at 160, 254 A.2d 97 . | 5 | 1984–2010 |
In Re Yengo
green
2 sentences2010State v. Owens, 54 N.J. 153 , 254 A.2d 97 (1969); In re Yengo, 84 N.J. 111 , 417 A.2d 533 (1980). 2010State v. Owens, 54 N.J. 153 , 254 A.2d 97 (1969); In re Yengo, 84 N.J. 111 , 417 A.2d 533 (1980). | 4 | 1984–2010 |
Grzanka v. Pfeifer
green
2 sentences2025As such, "unsubstantiated expert testimony cannot provide to the factfinder . . . a qualified specialist's reliable analysis of an issue 'beyond the ken of the average juror.'" Ibid. (quoting Polzo, 196 N.J. at 582 ). 2025Super. 563, 580 (App. Div. 1997)). "[U]nsubstantiated expert testimony cannot provide to the factfinder the benefit that N.J.R.E. 702 envisions: a qualified specialist's reliable analysis of an issue 'beyond the ken of the average juror.'" Ibid. (quoting Polzo v. Cnty. of Essex, 196 N.J. 569, 582 (2008)). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Landrigan v. Celotex Corp.
green
1 sentence2025"By definition, unsubstantiated expert testimony cannot provide to the factfinder the benefit that N.J.R.E. 702 envisions: a qualified specialist's reliable analysis of an issue 'beyond the ken of the average juror.'" Ibid. (quoting Polzo v. Cnty. of Essex, 196 N.J. 569, 582 (2008)). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Hamm
green
2 sentences2001Hamm, 121 N.J. at 112 , 577 A. 2d 1259 . "[A] jury trial is not required unless the maximum penalty to which defendant is exposed exceeds six months incarceration and a fine of $1,000.00." Ibid. 2001Hamm, 121 N.J. at 112 , 577 A. 2d 1259 . "[A] jury trial is not required unless the maximum penalty to which defendant is exposed exceeds six months incarceration and a fine of $1,000.00." Ibid. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Linnehan
green
2 sentences1993State v. Linnehan, 197 N.J.Super. 41, 43 , 484 A.2d 34 (App.Div. 1984). 1993State v. Linnehan, 197 N.J.Super. 41, 43 , 484 A.2d 34 (App.Div. 1984). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.