81 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1966–2026 19 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. Sugargreen2 sentences2022Although the State "need not establish the exclusive path leading to the discovery" of the evidence, it must "present facts sufficient to persuade the court, by a clear and convincing standard, that the [evidence] would be discovered." Sugar (III), 108 N.J. at 158 . 2021It need only present facts sufficient to persuade the court, by a clear and convincing standard, that the [evidence] would be discovered.'" Ibid. (second and third alterations in original) (quoting State v. Sugar, 108 N.J. 151, 158 (1987)). | 5 | 8 |
New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. A.W.green2 sentences2026Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591, 612 (1986) (applying the clear-and-convincing standard in a parental-rights termination case). 2026Servs. v. A.W., 103 N.J. 591, 612 (1986) (applying the clear-and-convincing standard in a parental-rights termination case). | 4 | 5 |
State v. Hernandezgreen2 sentences2026Although "[t]he clear and convincing standard may be satisfied by uncorroborated testimonial evidence," [c]lear and convincing "evidence is that which 'produce[s] in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief A-3280-22 28 or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established,' evidence 'so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as to enable (the factfinder) to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.'" [Hernandez, 170 N.J. at 127 (second alteration in original) (quoting In re Samay, 166 N.J. 25, 30 (2001)).] McIver's stat 2026Turning to the third Cofield prong, which requires proof of the other-crimes evidence by clear and convincing evidence, [c]lear and convincing "evidence is that which 'produce[s] in the mind of the trier of the fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established,' evidence 'so clear, direct[,] and weighty and convincing as to enable (the factfinder) to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.'" [State v. Hernandez, 170 N.J. 106, 127 (2001) (second alteration in original) (quoting In re Samay, 166 N.J. 25 | 4 | 5 |
In the Matter of Samaygreen2 sentences2026Turning to the third Cofield prong, which requires proof of the other-crimes evidence by clear and convincing evidence, [c]lear and convincing "evidence is that which 'produce[s] in the mind of the trier of the fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established,' evidence 'so clear, direct[,] and weighty and convincing as to enable (the factfinder) to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.'" [State v. Hernandez, 170 N.J. 106, 127 (2001) (second alteration in original) (quoting In re Samay, 166 N.J. 25 2026Turning to the third Cofield prong, which requires proof of the other-crimes evidence by clear and convincing evidence, [c]lear and convincing "evidence is that which 'produce[s] in the mind of the trier of the fact a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established,' evidence 'so clear, direct[,] and weighty and convincing as to enable (the factfinder) to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.'" [State v. Hernandez, 170 N.J. 106, 127 (2001) (second alteration in original) (quoting In re Samay, 166 N.J. 25 | 3 | 4 |
State v. Michael A. Maltese (073584)green2 sentences2019However, "the State need not demonstrate the exact circumstances of the evidence's discovery[.] It need only present facts sufficient to persuade the court, by a clear and convincing standard, that the [evidence] would be discovered." Maltese, 222 N.J. at 552 (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Sugar, 108 N.J. 151, 158 (1987)). 2018It need only present facts sufficient to persuade the court, by a clear and convincing standard, that the [evidence] would be discovered." Maltese, 222 N.J. at 552 (alterations in original) (quoting State v. Sugar, 108 N.J. 151, 158 (1987) (Sugar III)). | 3 | 3 |
In Re Adoption of Child by JDSgreen2 sentences2015See J.D.S., supra, 353 N.J. 2015See J.D.S., supra, 353 N.J. | 3 | 3 |
Matter of Seamangreen2 sentences2001III A Judicial disciplinary matters "before this Court on the presentment of the ACJC receive a de novo review of the record and are subject to a clear-and-convincing standard of proof." In re Seaman, 133 N.J. 67, 74 , 627 A. 2d 106 (1993). 2001III A Judicial disciplinary matters "before this Court on the presentment of the ACJC receive a de novo review of the record and are subject to a clear-and-convincing standard of proof." In re Seaman, 133 N.J. 67, 74 , 627 A. 2d 106 (1993). | 2 | 4 |
Aiello v. Knoll Golf Clubgreen2 sentences2009The clear-and-convincing standard thereby requires that the judge possess "a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established." Matter of Purrazzella, 134 N.J. 228, 240 , 633 A. 2d 507 (1993) (quoting Aiello v. Knoll Golf Club, 64 N.J.Super. 156, 162 , 165 A. 2d 531 (App. Div.1960)). 2009The clear-and-convincing standard thereby requires that the judge possess "a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established." Matter of Purrazzella, 134 N.J. 228, 240 , 633 A. 2d 507 (1993) (quoting Aiello v. Knoll Golf Club, 64 N.J.Super. 156, 162 , 165 A. 2d 531 (App. Div.1960)). | 2 | 3 |
Tiedemann v. Cozinegreen2 sentences2020See, e.g., N.J.S.A. 25:1-12; N.J.S.A. 25:1-13; Morton, 180 N.J. at 125-26 ; Tiedemann v. Cozine, 297 N.J. 2020See, e.g., N.J.S.A. 25:1-12; N.J.S.A. 25:1-13; Morton, 180 N.J. at 125-26 ; Tiedemann v. Cozine, 297 N.J. | 2 | 2 |
Cruzan Ex Rel. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Healthgreen2 sentences2014The clear and convincing standard of proof also governs an action to withhold life sustaining treatment from a person in a persistent vegetative state, Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Deft of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 284 , 110 S.Ct. 2841, 2854 , 111 L.Ed.2d 224, 245-46 (1990); or from an incompetent nursing home patient, In re Conroy, 98 N.J. 321, 382 , 486 A.2d 1209 (1985); in disciplinary proceedings against an attorney or a doctor, In re Rachmiel, 90 N.J. 646, 661 , 449 A.2d 505 (1982); In re Polk License Revocation, 90 N.J. 550, 563 , 449 A.2d 7 (1982); and to prove fraud, Fox v. Mercedes-Benz Credit Cor 2014The clear and convincing standard of proof also governs an action to withhold life sustaining treatment from a person in a persistent vegetative state, Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Deft of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 284 , 110 S.Ct. 2841, 2854 , 111 L.Ed.2d 224, 245-46 (1990); or from an incompetent nursing home patient, In re Conroy, 98 N.J. 321, 382 , 486 A.2d 1209 (1985); in disciplinary proceedings against an attorney or a doctor, In re Rachmiel, 90 N.J. 646, 661 , 449 A.2d 505 (1982); In re Polk License Revocation, 90 N.J. 550, 563 , 449 A.2d 7 (1982); and to prove fraud, Fox v. Mercedes-Benz Credit Cor | 2 | 2 |
Addington v. Texasgreen2 sentences2017The clear and convincing standard of proof requires that the result shall not be reached by a mere balancing of doubts or probabilities, but rather by clear evidence which causes you to be convinced that the allegations sought to be proved are true. [Model Jury Charge (Civil), 1.19, "Burden of Proof – Clear and Convincing Evidence" (2011).] Plaintiff's only support for his claim that he did not commit the crimes in question is the opinion by the Court of Appeals that involuntary commitment of a person to a psychiatric facility, Addington, supra, 441 U.S. 418 , 99 S. Ct. 1804 , 60 L. 2017The clear and convincing standard of proof requires that the result shall not be reached by a mere balancing of doubts or probabilities, but rather by clear evidence which causes you to be convinced that the allegations sought to be proved are true. [Model Jury Charge (Civil), 1.19, "Burden of Proof – Clear and Convincing Evidence" (2011).] Plaintiff's only support for his claim that he did not commit the crimes in question is the opinion by the Court of Appeals that involuntary commitment of a person to a psychiatric facility, Addington, supra, 441 U.S. 418 , 99 S. Ct. 1804 , 60 L. | 1 | 6 |
In Re the Revocation of the License of Polkgreen2 sentences2014The clear and convincing standard of proof also governs an action to withhold life sustaining treatment from a person in a persistent vegetative state, Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Deft of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 284 , 110 S.Ct. 2841, 2854 , 111 L.Ed.2d 224, 245-46 (1990); or from an incompetent nursing home patient, In re Conroy, 98 N.J. 321, 382 , 486 A.2d 1209 (1985); in disciplinary proceedings against an attorney or a doctor, In re Rachmiel, 90 N.J. 646, 661 , 449 A.2d 505 (1982); In re Polk License Revocation, 90 N.J. 550, 563 , 449 A.2d 7 (1982); and to prove fraud, Fox v. Mercedes-Benz Credit Cor 2014The clear and convincing standard of proof also governs an action to withhold life sustaining treatment from a person in a persistent vegetative state, Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Deft of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 284 , 110 S.Ct. 2841, 2854 , 111 L.Ed.2d 224, 245-46 (1990); or from an incompetent nursing home patient, In re Conroy, 98 N.J. 321, 382 , 486 A.2d 1209 (1985); in disciplinary proceedings against an attorney or a doctor, In re Rachmiel, 90 N.J. 646, 661 , 449 A.2d 505 (1982); In re Polk License Revocation, 90 N.J. 550, 563 , 449 A.2d 7 (1982); and to prove fraud, Fox v. Mercedes-Benz Credit Cor | 1 | 4 |
State v. Olivergreen2 sentences2026See id. at 590-91 (recognizing "the Third Circuit . . . imposed a standard of clear and convincing proof as a predicate to employment of sex offender notification laws" in E.B. v. A-4150-23 17 Verniero, 119 F.3d 1077 (3d Cir. 1997)); see also In re Registrant J.G., 169 N.J. 304, 330 (2001) (adopting a clear-and-convincing standard in case involving Megan's Law). 2026See id. at 590-91 (recognizing "the Third Circuit . . . imposed a standard of clear and convincing proof as a predicate to employment of sex offender notification laws" in E.B. v. A-4150-23 17 Verniero, 119 F.3d 1077 (3d Cir. 1997)); see also In re Registrant J.G., 169 N.J. 304, 330 (2001) (adopting a clear-and-convincing standard in case involving Megan's Law). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sanchez-Medinagreen1 sentence2026Although "[t]he clear and convincing standard may be satisfied by uncorroborated testimonial evidence," [c]lear and convincing "evidence is that which 'produce[s] in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief A-3280-22 28 or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established,' evidence 'so clear, direct and weighty and convincing as to enable (the factfinder) to come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of the precise facts in issue.'" [Hernandez, 170 N.J. at 127 (second alteration in original) (quoting In re Samay, 166 N.J. 25, 30 (2001)).] McIver's stat | 1 | 1 |
In Re Registrant J.G.green2 sentences2026See id. at 590-91 (recognizing "the Third Circuit . . . imposed a standard of clear and convincing proof as a predicate to employment of sex offender notification laws" in E.B. v. A-4150-23 17 Verniero, 119 F.3d 1077 (3d Cir. 1997)); see also In re Registrant J.G., 169 N.J. 304, 330 (2001) (adopting a clear-and-convincing standard in case involving Megan's Law). 2026See id. at 590-91 (recognizing "the Third Circuit . . . imposed a standard of clear and convincing proof as a predicate to employment of sex offender notification laws" in E.B. v. A-4150-23 17 Verniero, 119 F.3d 1077 (3d Cir. 1997)); see also In re Registrant J.G., 169 N.J. 304, 330 (2001) (adopting a clear-and-convincing standard in case involving Megan's Law). | 1 | 1 |
Nos. 96-5132, 96-5416green2 sentences2026See id. at 590-91 (recognizing "the Third Circuit . . . imposed a standard of clear and convincing proof as a predicate to employment of sex offender notification laws" in E.B. v. A-4150-23 17 Verniero, 119 F.3d 1077 (3d Cir. 1997)); see also In re Registrant J.G., 169 N.J. 304, 330 (2001) (adopting a clear-and-convincing standard in case involving Megan's Law). 2026See id. at 590-91 (recognizing "the Third Circuit . . . imposed a standard of clear and convincing proof as a predicate to employment of sex offender notification laws" in E.B. v. A-4150-23 17 Verniero, 119 F.3d 1077 (3d Cir. 1997)); see also In re Registrant J.G., 169 N.J. 304, 330 (2001) (adopting a clear-and-convincing standard in case involving Megan's Law). | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Estate of Stockdalegreen2 sentences2024See Stockdale, 196 N.J. at 303 . will may overcome the presumption "in accordance with the preponderance of the evidence standard," 196 N.J. at 303 (citation omitted). 2024See Stockdale, 196 N.J. at 303 . will may overcome the presumption "in accordance with the preponderance of the evidence standard," 196 N.J. at 303 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
In re the Estate Ehrlichgreen1 sentence2022"The term 'lost will' includes a will 'which may be in existence but which cannot be found so as to be produced for probate.'" In re Estate of Ehrlich, 427 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Vezzetti v. Shieldsgreen1 sentence2021A confidential relationship does not come into existence merely because the testator and the proponent are related; as Judge (later Chief Justice) Hughes said for this court in Vezzetti v. Shields, 22 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
| Richard Catena v. Raytheon Companygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Nix v. Williamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Boggiagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Anthony D'agostino v. Ricardo Maldonado (068940)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Browngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Vc v. Mjbgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Howardgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Amratlal C. Bhagat v. Bharat A. Bhagat (068312)green | 1 | 1 |
| Ramsey v. United Mine Workersgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Spiveygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Harveygreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Morton v. 4 Orchard Land Trust
green
2 sentences2020See, e.g., N.J.S.A. 25:1-12; N.J.S.A. 25:1-13; Morton, 180 N.J. at 125-26 ; Tiedemann v. Cozine, 297 N.J. 2020See, e.g., N.J.S.A. 25:1-12; N.J.S.A. 25:1-13; Morton, 180 N.J. at 125-26 ; Tiedemann v. Cozine, 297 N.J. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
In Re the Commitment of W.Z.
green
2 sentences2017Ed. 2d 323 ; commitment pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act, In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109 (2002); decision to withhold life sustaining treatment from a person in a persistent vegetative state, Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 284 , 110 S. Ct. 2841, 2854 , 111 L. 2014Div. of Youth & Family Sens. v. AW., 103 N.J. 591, 611-12 , 512 A.2d 438 (1986); to involuntarily commit a person to a psychiatric facility, Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 , 99 S.Ct. 1804 , 60 *47 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979); or to commit a person pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act, In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109 , 801 A.2d 205 (2002). | 2 | 2014–2017 |
Santosky v. Kramer
green
2 sentences2014Furthermore, the State is required only to meet the clear and convincing standard to terminate parental rights, Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982); N.J. 2014Furthermore, the State is required only to meet the clear and convincing standard to terminate parental rights, Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 , 102 S.Ct. 1388 , 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982); N.J. | 2 | 1982–2014 |
Matter of Purrazzella
green
2 sentences2009The clear-and-convincing standard thereby requires that the judge possess "a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established." Matter of Purrazzella, 134 N.J. 228, 240 , 633 A. 2d 507 (1993) (quoting Aiello v. Knoll Golf Club, 64 N.J.Super. 156, 162 , 165 A. 2d 531 (App. Div.1960)). 2009The clear-and-convincing standard thereby requires that the judge possess "a firm belief or conviction as to the truth of the allegations sought to be established." Matter of Purrazzella, 134 N.J. 228, 240 , 633 A. 2d 507 (1993) (quoting Aiello v. Knoll Golf Club, 64 N.J.Super. 156, 162 , 165 A. 2d 531 (App. Div.1960)). | 2 | 2006–2009 |
Gray v. Press Communications, LLC
green
2 sentences2003Ibid. 2002Gray v. Press Communications, L.L.C., 342 N.J.Super. 1, 12 , 775 A. 2d 678 (App.Div.), *925 certif. denied, 170 N.J. 390 , 788 A. 2d 774 (2001). | 2 | 2002–2003 |
Costello v. Ocean County Observer
green
2 sentences2001Ibid. 2001Ibid. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Dairy Stores, Inc. v. Sentinel Publishing Co.
green
2 sentences1993Our ruling in that regard, though, was clearly foreshadowed by our unqualified declaration in Dairy Stores, supra, that “the actual malice standard should apply to non-media as well as media defendants.” 104 N.J. at 153 , 516 A.2d 220 . 1987It was held to be constitutionally required in Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. ___ , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , 91 L.Ed. 2d 202 (1986), but our Supreme Court elected instead to "remain with the traditional test for summary judgment," reasoning "that the clear-and-convincing test inevitably implicates a weighing of the evidence, an exercise that intrudes into the province of the jury." Dairy Stores, supra, 104 N.J. at 156-157 . | 2 | 1987–1993 |
Jones v. United States
green
2 sentences1984It stated that NGI committees as a class, having engaged in criminal conduct, are more likely to be dangerous than civil committees who could be committed under Addington “for mere ‘idiosyncratic behavior.’ ” Jones, supra-U.S. at-, 103 S.Ct. at 3049 , 77 L.Ed. 2d at 705 . 1984It stated that NGI committees as a class, having engaged in criminal conduct, are more likely to be dangerous than civil committees who could be committed under Addington “for mere ‘idiosyncratic behavior.’ ” Jones, supra-U.S. at-, 103 S.Ct. at 3049 , 77 L.Ed. 2d at 705 . | 2 | 1984–1984 |
Lobiondo v. O'CALLAGHAN
green
1 sentence2024Id. at 495 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Williams
green
1 sentence2022Ibid. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Kercheval v. United States green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In re Helmer
green
1 sentence2021Helmer, 237 N.J. at 88 (quoting In re Seaman, 133 N.J. 67, 74 (1993)). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Johnson green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Haynes v. First Nat'l State Bk. of NJ green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Harris green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Drope v. Missouri green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| In re Barrett neutral | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State ex rel. A.R. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Sugar green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. R.D. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| In Re Rachmiel green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Fox v. Mercedes-Benz Credit Corp. green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Llewellyn v. New York Telephone Co. green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Matter of Conroy green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| TURRO EX REL. TURRO v. Turro green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| In Re Mathesius green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Crespo v. Crespo neutral | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Denville Amusement Co., Inc. v. Fogelson green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Roe v. Roe green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Crespo v. Crespo green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Harleysville Ins. Co. v. Diamond neutral | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Pruitt v. State green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Lucas green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Pate v. Robinson green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| McBarron v. Kipling Woods green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| Prant v. Sterling green | 1 | 2004–2004 |
| State v. Zwillman green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| United States v. Gary Lamont Curry green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| State v. Longo green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| State v. Burgess green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.