12 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Davisgreen2 sentences2000N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-20; N.J.R.E. 540; See State v. Davis, 116 N.J. 341 , 561 A. 2d 1082 (1989). 2000N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-20; N.J.R.E. 540; See State v. Davis, 116 N.J. 341 , 561 A. 2d 1082 (1989). | 1 | 2 |
New Jersey Highway Authority v. Rennergreen2 sentences1984As Justice Jacobs wrote, “[A]fter all, justice is the polestar and our procedures must ever be moulded and applied with that in mind.” New Jersey Highway Auth. v. Renner, 18 N.J. 485, 495 (1955). 1984As Justice Jacobs wrote, "[A]fter all, justice is the polestar and our procedures must ever be moulded and applied with that in mind." New Jersey Highway Auth. v. Renner, 18 N.J. 485, 495 (1955). *347 III. | 1 | 1 |
Elting v. Friemangreen2 sentences1981See also Elting v. Frieman, 89 N.J. 1981See also Elting v. Frieman, 89 N.J. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Glenn Hedden v. Kean University
green
2 sentences2024N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-20; Hedden, 434 N.J. 2024N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-20; Hedden, 434 N.J. | 3 | 2022–2024 |
Banco Popular North America v. Gandi
green
2 sentences2009Banco Popular, supra, 184 N.J. at 178 , 876 A.2d 253 . 2009Banco Popular, supra, 184 N.J. at 178 , 876 A.2d 253 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
In Re Kozlov
green
2 sentences1997Kozlov, supra, 79 N.J. at 232 , 398 A.2d 882 (1979). 1997Kozlov, supra, 79 N.J. at 232 , 398 A.2d 882 (1979). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Sugar
green
2 sentences1997State v. Sugar, 84 N.J. 1, 13 , 417 A.2d 474 (1980); Trilogy Communications, Inc. v. Excom Realty, Inc., 279 N.J.Super. 442, 447-48 , 652 A.2d 1273 (Law Div.1994); N.I.S.A. 2A:84A-30; N.J.R.E. 531. 1997State v. Sugar, 84 N.J. 1, 13 , 417 A.2d 474 (1980); Trilogy Communications, Inc. v. Excom Realty, Inc., 279 N.J.Super. 442, 447-48 , 652 A.2d 1273 (Law Div.1994); N.I.S.A. 2A:84A-30; N.J.R.E. 531. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
In Re Opinion No. 26 of the Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law
green
2 sentences1997The ACPE also found that nothing in In re Opinion No. 26 of the Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law, 139 N.J. 323 , 654 A.2d 1344 (1995) requires or encourages the conclusion that an attorney should be able to refer a client to a bar-related title-insurance company in which the attorney owns a beneficial interest. 1997The ACPE also found that nothing in In re Opinion No. 26 of the Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law, 139 N.J. 323 , 654 A.2d 1344 (1995) requires or encourages the conclusion that an attorney should be able to refer a client to a bar-related title-insurance company in which the attorney owns a beneficial interest. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
TRILOGY COMMUN. v. Excom Realty
green
2 sentences1997State v. Sugar, 84 N.J. 1, 13 , 417 A.2d 474 (1980); Trilogy Communications, Inc. v. Excom Realty, Inc., 279 N.J.Super. 442, 447-48 , 652 A.2d 1273 (Law Div.1994); N.I.S.A. 2A:84A-30; N.J.R.E. 531. 1997State v. Sugar, 84 N.J. 1, 13 , 417 A.2d 474 (1980); Trilogy Communications, Inc. v. Excom Realty, Inc., 279 N.J.Super. 442, 447-48 , 652 A.2d 1273 (Law Div.1994); N.I.S.A. 2A:84A-30; N.J.R.E. 531. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
In Re Advisory Opinion No. 544 of the New Jersey Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics
green
2 sentences1993"The scope of the attorney-client privilege or protections is also subject to ethics rules governing attorney conduct." In re Advisory Opinion No. 544, 103 N.J. 399, 406 , 511 A. 2d 609 (1986). 1993"The scope of the attorney-client privilege or protections is also subject to ethics rules governing attorney conduct." In re Advisory Opinion No. 544, 103 N.J. 399, 406 , 511 A. 2d 609 (1986). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Kociolek
green
2 sentences1993As used in this rule (a) "client" means a person ... [who] directly or through an authorized representative, consults a lawyer or the lawyer's representative for the purpose of retaining the lawyer or securing legal service or advice from him in his professional capacity ... (b) "lawyer" means a person authorized, or reasonably believed by the client to be authorized to practice law in any State or nation the law of which recognizes a privilege against disclosure of confidential communications between client and lawyer. [ N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-20; Evid.R. 26.] As the statute and the Rule plainly sta 1993As used in this rule (a) "client" means a person ... [who] directly or through an authorized representative, consults a lawyer or the lawyer's representative for the purpose of retaining the lawyer or securing legal service or advice from him in his professional capacity ... (b) "lawyer" means a person authorized, or reasonably believed by the client to be authorized to practice law in any State or nation the law of which recognizes a privilege against disclosure of confidential communications between client and lawyer. [ N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-20; Evid.R. 26.] As the statute and the Rule plainly sta | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Fellerman v. Bradley
green
2 sentences1993As used in this rule (a) "client" means a person ... [who] directly or through an authorized representative, consults a lawyer or the lawyer's representative for the purpose of retaining the lawyer or securing legal service or advice from him in his professional capacity ... (b) "lawyer" means a person authorized, or reasonably believed by the client to be authorized to practice law in any State or nation the law of which recognizes a privilege against disclosure of confidential communications between client and lawyer. [ N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-20; Evid.R. 26.] As the statute and the Rule plainly sta 1993As used in this rule (a) "client" means a person ... [who] directly or through an authorized representative, consults a lawyer or the lawyer's representative for the purpose of retaining the lawyer or securing legal service or advice from him in his professional capacity ... (b) "lawyer" means a person authorized, or reasonably believed by the client to be authorized to practice law in any State or nation the law of which recognizes a privilege against disclosure of confidential communications between client and lawyer. [ N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-20; Evid.R. 26.] As the statute and the Rule plainly sta | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Baumann v. Marinaro
green
2 sentences1984Only recently, in Baumann v. Marinaro, 95 N.J. 380 (1984), we reemphasized that the crucial factor in reviewing sanctions for attorney misconduct is whether the client has had a hearing on the merits. 1984Only recently, in Baumann v. Marinaro, 95 N.J. 380 (1984), we reemphasized that the crucial factor in reviewing sanctions for attorney misconduct is whether the client has had a hearing on the merits. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.