11 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2016 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hines v. Kellygreen2 sentences2014App. Div. 2013) ("Although petitioner's Certificate of Relief from Disabilities removed the automatic bar to licensure occasioned by his prior convictions, it 'did not prevent respondent from relying on the convictions in the exercise of his statutory discretion to deny a [firearm] license for lack of good moral character or good cause.'" (quoting Hines v. Kelly, 635 N.Y.S.2d 31, 32 (N.Y. 2014See Matter of Caputo v. Kelly, 117 A.D.3d 644 , 987 N.Y.S.2d 46 , 47 (2013) (“Although petitioner's Certificate of Relief from Disabilities removed the automatic bar to licensure occasioned by his prior convictions, it 'did not prevent respondent from relying on the convictions in the exercise of his statutoiy discretion to deny a [firearm] license for lack of good moral character or good cause.' “ (quoting Hines v. Kelly, 222 A.D.2d 277, 635 N.Y.S.2d 31, 32 (N.Y.App.Div.1985))). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Powellgreen2 sentences1987However, the court specifically said, "We do not advocate use of such an automatic rule in this State." Ibid. 1985See Powell, 84 N.J. at 316 n. 12. ("We do not advocate use of such an automatic rule in this State.’’) To that extent, the opinion is consistent with the Code of Criminal Justice, which did not apply in Powell , the offense having predated the effective date of the Act, see N.J.S.A. 2C:1-8(e): “Submission of Included Offense to Jury. | 1 | 2 |
Taylor v. Taintorgreen2 sentences2016The Court agreed there could be circumstances in which the "impossibility of securing the defendant's presence may play a role in assessing a surety's motion for remission and in the appropriate case, relief may be granted." Id. at 216 (citing Taylor v. Taintor, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 366, 369 , 21 L. 2016The Court agreed there could be circumstances in which the "impossibility of securing the defendant's presence may play a role in assessing a surety's motion for remission and in the appropriate case, relief may be granted." Id. at 216 (citing Taylor v. Taintor, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 366, 369 , 21 L. | 1 | 1 |
Caputo v. Kellygreen2 sentences2014See Matter of Caputo v. Kelly, 117 A.D.3d 644 , 987 N.Y.S.2d 46 , 47 (2013) (“Although petitioner's Certificate of Relief from Disabilities removed the automatic bar to licensure occasioned by his prior convictions, it 'did not prevent respondent from relying on the convictions in the exercise of his statutoiy discretion to deny a [firearm] license for lack of good moral character or good cause.' “ (quoting Hines v. Kelly, 222 A.D.2d 277, 635 N.Y.S.2d 31, 32 (N.Y.App.Div.1985))). 2014See Matter of Caputo v. Kelly, 117 A.D.3d 644 , 987 N.Y.S.2d 46 , 47 (2013) (“Although petitioner's Certificate of Relief from Disabilities removed the automatic bar to licensure occasioned by his prior convictions, it 'did not prevent respondent from relying on the convictions in the exercise of his statutoiy discretion to deny a [firearm] license for lack of good moral character or good cause.' “ (quoting Hines v. Kelly, 222 A.D.2d 277, 635 N.Y.S.2d 31, 32 (N.Y.App.Div.1985))). | 1 | 1 |
In re Freedmangreen1 sentence2014See Matter of Caputo v. Kelly, 117 A.D.3d 644 , 987 N.Y.S.2d 46 , 47 (2013) (“Although petitioner's Certificate of Relief from Disabilities removed the automatic bar to licensure occasioned by his prior convictions, it 'did not prevent respondent from relying on the convictions in the exercise of his statutoiy discretion to deny a [firearm] license for lack of good moral character or good cause.' “ (quoting Hines v. Kelly, 222 A.D.2d 277, 635 N.Y.S.2d 31, 32 (N.Y.App.Div.1985))). | 1 | 1 |
John Bollard v. The California Province Of The Society Of Jesusgreen2 sentences2002Bollard, supra, 196 F. 3d at 948, 950; Minker, supra, 894 F.2d at 1360 . 2002Bollard, supra, 196 F. 3d at 948, 950; Minker, supra, 894 F.2d at 1360 . | 1 | 1 |
Szczepanski v. Newcomb Medical Center, Inc.green2 sentences1996Szczepanski, supra, 141 N.J. at 367, 661 A. 2d 1232 . 1996Szczepanski, supra, 141 N.J. at 367, 661 A. 2d 1232 . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kent Motor Cars, Inc. v. Reynolds & Reynolds, Co.
green
2 sentences2012However, the Supreme Court eventually returned its application to claim preclusion only and chose to address "`[t]he goals of avoiding piecemeal litigation and creating efficiency as related to parties . . . by substituting the mechanism of disclosure for the automatic requirement of joinder.'" Ibid. (alterations in original) (quoting Kent Motor Cars, Inc. v. Reynolds & Reynolds, Co., 207 N.J. 428, 444 , 25 A. 3d 1027 (2011)). 2012However, the Supreme Court eventually returned its application to claim preclusion only and chose to address "`[t]he goals of avoiding piecemeal litigation and creating efficiency as related to parties . . . by substituting the mechanism of disclosure for the automatic requirement of joinder.'" Ibid. (alterations in original) (quoting Kent Motor Cars, Inc. v. Reynolds & Reynolds, Co., 207 N.J. 428, 444 , 25 A. 3d 1027 (2011)). | 2 | 2011–2012 |
State v. Ventura
green
2 sentences2016The Court recognized that in Poon, we "rejected an automatic rule against remission solely because the defendant had not been returned." Ventura, supra, 196 N.J. at 216-18 . 2016The Court recognized that in Poon, we "rejected an automatic rule against remission solely because the defendant had not been returned." Ventura, supra, 196 N.J. at 216-18 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
700 Highway 33 LLC v. Pollio
green
1 sentence2012However, the Supreme Court eventually returned its application to claim preclusion only and chose to address "`[t]he goals of avoiding piecemeal litigation and creating efficiency as related to parties . . . by substituting the mechanism of disclosure for the automatic requirement of joinder.'" Ibid. (alterations in original) (quoting Kent Motor Cars, Inc. v. Reynolds & Reynolds, Co., 207 N.J. 428, 444 , 25 A. 3d 1027 (2011)). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Puder v. Buechel
green
2 sentences2007Id. at 442-43 , 874 A. 2d 534 . *139 Plaintiff countered that the settlement with the nursing homes was not an automatic bar to its malpractice suit against Squitieri. 2007Id. at 442-43 , 874 A. 2d 534 . *139 Plaintiff countered that the settlement with the nursing homes was not an automatic bar to its malpractice suit against Squitieri. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Ralph L. Minker v. Baltimore Annual Conference of United Methodist Church and Bishop Joseph A. Yeakel
green
2 sentences2002Bollard, supra, 196 F. 3d at 948, 950; Minker, supra, 894 F.2d at 1360 . 2002Bollard, supra, 196 F. 3d at 948, 950; Minker, supra, 894 F.2d at 1360 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Irving Investment Corp. v. Gordon
green
1 sentence1974Irving Investment Corp. v. Gordon, 3 N.J. 217 (1949). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.