80 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Fritzgreen2 sentences2024See Fritz, 105 N.J. at 52 (citation omitted); see also Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697 . [Ibid. (citations reformatted).] The Court further observed, [t]he notion that a defendant can enter a plea of guilty, while maintaining his innocence, is foreign to our state jurisprudence. 2009Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance prejudiced (he defense.*’ [Id. at 52, 519 A.2d 336 (quoting Strickland, supra, 166 U.S. at 687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064 , 80 L.Ed.2d at 693 ).] To satisfy the second prong of the standard, a defendant “must show that there is ‘a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different. | 4 | 5 |
Silver v. Silvergreen2 sentences2026While the second prong inquiry "is most often perfunctory and self-evident, the guiding standard is whether a restraining order is necessary, upon an evaluation of the factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29[(a)](1) to -29[(a)][(7)], to protect the victim from an immediate danger or to prevent further abuse." Id. at 127 . "[T]he Legislature did not intend that the commission of one of the enumerated predicate acts of domestic violence automatically mandates the entry of a domestic violence restraining order." Id. at 126-27 . 2026While the second prong inquiry "is most often perfunctory and self-evident, the guiding standard is whether a restraining order is necessary, upon an evaluation of the factors set forth in N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29[(a)](1) to -29[(a)][(7)], to protect the victim from an immediate danger or to prevent further abuse." Id. at 127 . "[T]he Legislature did not intend that the commission of one of the enumerated predicate acts of domestic violence automatically mandates the entry of a domestic violence restraining order." Id. at 126-27 . | 3 | 15 |
State v. Nashgreen2 sentences2021The judge also found that defendant did not satisfy the second prong of the test which requires that "the new evidence must have been discovered after completion of trial and must not have been discoverable earlier through the exercise of reasonable diligence." State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518, 550 (2013) (quoting Ways, 180 N.J. at 192 ). 2021The judge also found that defendant did not satisfy the second prong of the test which requires that "the new evidence must have been discovered after completion of trial and must not have been discoverable earlier through the exercise of reasonable diligence." State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518, 550 (2013) (quoting Ways, 180 N.J. at 192 ). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2021Therefore, it "need not receive universal application in Rule 404(b) disputes." State v. Williams, 190 N.J. 114, 131 (2007). 2021Rules of Evidence, cmt. 8b on N.J.R.E. 404(b) (2020) (quoting State v. Williams, 190 N.J. 114, 131 (2007)). | 3 | 3 |
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2021We see no reason to disturb his conclusions rejecting those arguments, particularly that defendant failed to meet the second prong of the test set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) by showing the alleged errors A-3814-18 6 would have impacted the outcome of a trial.2 There is insufficient importance to defendant's claims to conclude "there has been an 'injustice' sufficient to relax the time limits." Mitchell, 126 N.J. at 580 . 2018Defendant was asked only twice about her desire not to be present, and the PCR judge found the trial court did not meet its obligation "to question defendants about their understanding of the nature and consequences of their absence from the trial." Ultimately, the PCR judge found although trial counsel's incomplete advice regarding defendant's absence from trial rendered her assistance ineffective, defendant did not satisfy the second prong of the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). | 2 | 6 |
State v. Osoriogreen2 sentences2025If the party exercising the peremptory strike satisfies its burden under the second prong of the analysis, then the trial court must weigh the prima facie case A-0839-22 16 against the exercising party's rebuttal "to determine whether the [opposing party] has carried the ultimate burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the [striking party] exercised its peremptory challenges on constitutionally[] impermissible grounds of presumed group bias." Gilmore, 103 N.J. at 539 ; Osorio, 199 N.J. at 492-93, 506 . 2025If the party exercising the peremptory strike satisfies its burden under the second prong of the analysis, then the trial court must weigh the prima facie case A-0839-22 16 against the exercising party's rebuttal "to determine whether the [opposing party] has carried the ultimate burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the [striking party] exercised its peremptory challenges on constitutionally[] impermissible grounds of presumed group bias." Gilmore, 103 N.J. at 539 ; Osorio, 199 N.J. at 492-93, 506 . | 2 | 2 |
In Re the Guardianship of K.H.O.green2 sentences2023Although the relationship with the resource family was only explicitly added to the second prong of the best interests test as codified in statute, the Court explained that it was also relevant under the fourth prong -- N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(4) -- in In re Guardianship of K.H.O., 161 N.J. 337, 353-55 (1999), and subsequent case law. 2020K.H.O., 161 N.J. at 352 . | 1 | 2 |
Maryanne Grande v. Saint Clare’s Health System (076606) (Morris County and Statewide)green2 sentences2021Claire's Health Sys, 230 N.J. 1, 17-18 (2017)).] Here, plaintiff cannot establish the second prong of the test. 2019Our Supreme Court recently held "that the reasonable-accommodation consideration belongs in the second-prong analysis." Grande, 230 N.J. at 21 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Harveygreen2 sentences2010In the interest of completeness, we also note that the State proved the reliability of the Y-STR DNA technique under the second prong of the test, which allows a proponent to establish general acceptance "by authoritative scientific and legal writings indicating that the scientific community accepts the premises underlying the proffered testimony." Harvey, supra, 151 N.J. at 170 , 699 A. 2d 596 . 2010In the interest of completeness, we also note that the State proved the reliability of the Y-STR DNA technique under the second prong of the test, which allows a proponent to establish general acceptance "by authoritative scientific and legal writings indicating that the scientific community accepts the premises underlying the proffered testimony." Harvey, supra, 151 N.J. at 170 , 699 A. 2d 596 . | 1 | 2 |
In re Accutane Litig.green1 sentence2025For expert testimony to be admitted under Rule 702, (1) the intended testimony must concern a subject matter that is beyond the ken of the average juror; (2) the field testified to must be at a state of the art such that an expert's testimony could be sufficiently reliable; and (3) the witness must have sufficient expertise to offer the intended testimony. [In re Accutane Litig., 234 N.J. 340, 349 (2018) (quoting State v. Kelly, 97 N.J. 178, 223 (1984)).] A-3391-21 14 At the time of defendant's trial in February 2022, a proponent of scientific evidence could establish the second prong of the t | 1 | 1 |
State v. Chungreen1 sentence2025For expert testimony to be admitted under Rule 702, (1) the intended testimony must concern a subject matter that is beyond the ken of the average juror; (2) the field testified to must be at a state of the art such that an expert's testimony could be sufficiently reliable; and (3) the witness must have sufficient expertise to offer the intended testimony. [In re Accutane Litig., 234 N.J. 340, 349 (2018) (quoting State v. Kelly, 97 N.J. 178, 223 (1984)).] A-3391-21 14 At the time of defendant's trial in February 2022, a proponent of scientific evidence could establish the second prong of the t | 1 | 1 |
State v. Kellygreen2 sentences2025For expert testimony to be admitted under Rule 702, (1) the intended testimony must concern a subject matter that is beyond the ken of the average juror; (2) the field testified to must be at a state of the art such that an expert's testimony could be sufficiently reliable; and (3) the witness must have sufficient expertise to offer the intended testimony. [In re Accutane Litig., 234 N.J. 340, 349 (2018) (quoting State v. Kelly, 97 N.J. 178, 223 (1984)).] A-3391-21 14 At the time of defendant's trial in February 2022, a proponent of scientific evidence could establish the second prong of the t 2025For expert testimony to be admitted under Rule 702, (1) the intended testimony must concern a subject matter that is beyond the ken of the average juror; (2) the field testified to must be at a state of the art such that an expert's testimony could be sufficiently reliable; and (3) the witness must have sufficient expertise to offer the intended testimony. [In re Accutane Litig., 234 N.J. 340, 349 (2018) (quoting State v. Kelly, 97 N.J. 178, 223 (1984)).] A-3391-21 14 At the time of defendant's trial in February 2022, a proponent of scientific evidence could establish the second prong of the t | 1 | 1 |
State v. Torresgreen1 sentence2024Here, we need not even look to other jurisdictions because the Court in Derry, relying on precedent in New Jersey and in other jurisdictions, explained that expert testimony concerning the meanings of coded words or slang used by individuals during the commission of drug and weapons offenses is sufficiently reliable to satisfy the second prong of the standard for admission of expert testimony under N.J.R.E. 702.11 Id. at 633, 635 ; see also Hyman, 451 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
In Re the Guardianship of J.C.green1 sentence2023That specific direction was explicitly added to the second prong of the test -- N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)(2) -- via legislative amendment in 1995 following the Court’s recognition of the importance of that evaluation in In re Guardianship of J.C., 129 N.J. 1, 19 (1992). (pp. 20-24) 2. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Preciosegreen1 sentence2021See, e.g., Preciose, 129 N.J. at 462 (explaining an evidentiary hearing is not required where a defendant does not establish a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel); see also R. 3:22-10(b) (providing in part that "[a] defendant shall be entitled to an evidentiary hearing only upon the establishment of a prima facie case in support of post-conviction relief"). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Megargelgreen1 sentence2021"While the Code does not define the 'interest of justice,' . . . it is a high bar, requiring 'compelling' reasons for downgrade." Trinidad, 241 N.J. at 454 (citing State v. Megargel, 143 N.J. 484, 500-02 (1996)). | 1 | 1 |
Lepis v. Lepisgreen1 sentence2021See generally Lepis, 83 N.J. at 157-59 . | 1 | 1 |
| Gilchrist v. Division of Employment Securitygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Taccettagreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Rosemary BROWN, Debtor. FIRST JERSEY NATIONAL BANK v. Rosemary BROWN, Appellantgreen | 1 | 1 |
| George W. Henglein v. Colt Industries Operating Corporationgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Samuel Lee Clarkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Lessliegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Wheeler v. Towanda Area School Districtgreen | 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. Cofield
green
2 sentences2021The probative value of the evidence must not be outweighed by its apparent prejudice. [Cofield, 127 N.J. at 338 (quoting Abraham P. Ordover, Balancing the Presumption of Guilt and Innocence: Rules 404(b), 608(b), and 609(a), 38 Emory L.J. 135 , 160 (1989)).] The second prong of the test is not found in N.J.R.E. 404(b). 2018The probative value of the evidence must not be outweighed by its apparent prejudice. [Cofield, 127 N.J. at 338 (quoting Abraham P. Ordover, Balancing the Presumption of Guilt and Innocence: Rules 404(b), 608(b), and 609(a), 38 Emory L.J. 135 , 160 (1989)).] The second prong of the test is not found in N.J.R.E. 404(b). | 3 | 2014–2021 |
State v. Gilmore
green
2 sentences2025If the party exercising the peremptory strike satisfies its burden under the second prong of the analysis, then the trial court must weigh the prima facie case A-0839-22 16 against the exercising party's rebuttal "to determine whether the [opposing party] has carried the ultimate burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the [striking party] exercised its peremptory challenges on constitutionally[] impermissible grounds of presumed group bias." Gilmore, 103 N.J. at 539 ; Osorio, 199 N.J. at 492-93, 506 . 2025If the party exercising the peremptory strike satisfies its burden under the second prong of the analysis, then the trial court must weigh the prima facie case A-0839-22 16 against the exercising party's rebuttal "to determine whether the [opposing party] has carried the ultimate burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the [striking party] exercised its peremptory challenges on constitutionally[] impermissible grounds of presumed group bias." Gilmore, 103 N.J. at 539 ; Osorio, 199 N.J. at 492-93, 506 . | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Clark
green
2 sentences2025Courts should look to "whether the [exercising party] has applied the proffered reasons . . . even-handedly to all prospective jurors;" "the overall pattern of the [exercising party]'s use of its peremptory challenges," examining whether a disproportionate number of peremptory challenges were used on a cognizable group; and "the composition of the jury ultimately selected to try the case." Osorio, 199 N.J. at 506 (quoting Clark, 316 N.J. 2025Courts should look to "whether the [exercising party] has applied the proffered reasons . . . even-handedly to all prospective jurors;" "the overall pattern of the [exercising party]'s use of its peremptory challenges," examining whether a disproportionate number of peremptory challenges were used on a cognizable group; and "the composition of the jury ultimately selected to try the case." Osorio, 199 N.J. at 506 (quoting Clark, 316 N.J. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Ways
green
2 sentences2021The judge also found that defendant did not satisfy the second prong of the test which requires that "the new evidence must have been discovered after completion of trial and must not have been discoverable earlier through the exercise of reasonable diligence." State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518, 550 (2013) (quoting Ways, 180 N.J. at 192 ). 2021The judge also found that defendant did not satisfy the second prong of the test which requires that "the new evidence must have been discovered after completion of trial and must not have been discoverable earlier through the exercise of reasonable diligence." State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518, 550 (2013) (quoting Ways, 180 N.J. at 192 ). | 2 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Garron
green
2 sentences2012The "probative value" of evidence is "its tendency to establish the proposition that it is offered to prove." Garron, supra, 177 N.J. at 167 n. 2, 827 A. 2d 243 (citing State v. Wilson, 135 N.J. 4, 13 , 637 A. 2d 1237 (1994)). 2012The "probative value" of evidence is "its tendency to establish the proposition that it is offered to prove." Garron, supra, 177 N.J. at 167 n. 2, 827 A. 2d 243 (citing State v. Wilson, 135 N.J. 4, 13 , 637 A. 2d 1237 (1994)). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2012The "probative value" of evidence is "its tendency to establish the proposition that it is offered to prove." Garron, supra, 177 N.J. at 167 n. 2, 827 A. 2d 243 (citing State v. Wilson, 135 N.J. 4, 13 , 637 A. 2d 1237 (1994)). 2012The "probative value" of evidence is "its tendency to establish the proposition that it is offered to prove." Garron, supra, 177 N.J. at 167 n. 2, 827 A. 2d 243 (citing State v. Wilson, 135 N.J. 4, 13 , 637 A. 2d 1237 (1994)). | 2 | 2012–2012 |
Florida House of Representatives, Honorable T.K. Wetherell, Speaker, Cross-Appellant v. United States Department of Commerce, Cross-Appellee
green
2 sentences2009Different tests have emerged concerning what is and is not “deliberation,” and “deliberative” material, when facts infiltrate the documents in issue, clouding the line between “opinion” and “fact.” The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit formulated its test for determining the breadth of “deliberation” in Florida House of Representatives v. Dep’t of Commerce, 961 F.2d 941 (11th Cir.1992). 2009Different tests have emerged concerning what is and is not "deliberation," and "deliberative" material, when facts infiltrate the documents in issue, clouding the line between "opinion" and "fact." The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit formulated its test for determining the breadth of "deliberation" in Florida House of Representatives v. Dep't of Commerce, 961 F. 2d 941 (11th Cir.1992). | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
green
2 sentences2005It was this second prong which led to the dismissal of plaintiffs’ claim against their Virginia attorney in Washington, supra. A party who seeks to defeat forum jurisdiction in the light of having purposefully directed activities at forum residents “must present a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.” Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at 477 , 105 S.Ct. at 2185 , 85 L. 2005It was this second prong which led to the dismissal of plaintiffs’ claim against their Virginia attorney in Washington, supra. A party who seeks to defeat forum jurisdiction in the light of having purposefully directed activities at forum residents “must present a compelling case that the presence of some other considerations would render jurisdiction unreasonable.” Burger King, supra, 471 U.S. at 477 , 105 S.Ct. at 2185 , 85 L. | 2 | 1991–2005 |
Cesare v. Cesare
green
1 sentence2026While the second prong inquiry "is most often perfunctory and self-evident, the guiding standard is whether a restraining order is necessary, upon an evaluation of the [applicable] factors . . . to protect the victim from an immediate danger or to prevent further abuse." Ibid. (citing N.J.S.A. 2C:25-29(b)). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
In Re Contest of November 8, 2011 General Election of Office of New Jersey General Assembly, Fourth Legislative District
green
1 sentence2024Gaitan, 209 N.J. at 350 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re the Guardianship of J.N.H.
green
2 sentences2024In A-0360-23 12 considering the second prong of the test, a court must "weigh[] . . . the effects setting aside the judgment may have on the child's stability and permanency." Ibid. "[T]he primary issue is . . . what effect the grant of the motion would have on the child." Ibid. (omission in original) (quoting J.N.H., 172 N.J. at 475 ). 2024In that regard, the New Jersey Supreme Court has recognized "that the passage of time in a parental termination case, especially where a child has successfully adjusted to a long-term placement, is of much greater significance than it would be in practically any other context." J.N.H., 172 N.J. at 475 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Carter
green
1 sentence2022The judge concluded the bite mark evidence qualified as "newly discovered" under the second prong of the test articulated in State v. Carter, 91 N.J. 86 (1982) because the scientific studies challenging such evidence were not available at the time of defendant's trial. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
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 |
| State v. Mitchell green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. E.P. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Aaron Bruce Gregory v. United States Government green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. G.L. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Ryan v. Holy Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Sam Hargrove v. Sleepy's, LLC (072742) green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| North Jersey Media Group, Inc. v. Township of Lyndhurst (076184) (Bergen County and Statewide) green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Smith green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Miranda v. Arizona green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| North Jersey Media Group, Inc. v. Township of Lyndhurst green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Madison green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Manson v. Brathwaite green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Allendorf v. Kaiserman Enterprises green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| ELC v. Doe green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Lebel v. Everglades Marina, Inc. green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Charles Gendler & Co. v. Telecom Equipment Corp. green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Zive v. Stanley Roberts, Inc. green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Spadoro v. Whitman green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Oswin v. Shaw red | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Oswin v. Shaw green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| JC v. Mendham Tp. Bd. of Educ. green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Schlumberger Industries, Inc. v. Borough of Avalon green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Gaglioti Contracting, Inc. v. City of Hoboken green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Stano v. Soldo Constr. Co. green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| State v. Alston green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Meadowbrook Carting Co. v. Borough of Island Heights green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.