11 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Kennedygreen2 sentences2019However, in order to obtain discovery of such records, a defendant must first demonstrate "a colorable basis for a claim of selective enforcement." Ibid. (quoting State v. Kennedy, 247 N.J. 2019Super. 545, 559 (App. Div. 2005)). "[A] defendant must establish a colorable basis for a claim of selective enforcement in order to obtain pretrial discovery[.]" State v. Kennedy, 247 N.J. | 2 | 6 |
United States v. Pablo Berriosgreen2 sentences2001In other words, "a defendant must present `some evidence tending to show the existence of the essential elements of the defense and that the documents in the government's possession would indeed be probative of these elements.'" Id. at 32 , 588 A. 2d 834 (quoting United States v. Berrios, 501 F. 2d 1207, 1211-12 (2d Cir. 1974)). 2000To do so "a defendant must present `some evidence tending to show the existence of the essential elements of the defense and that the documents in the government's possession would indeed be probative of these elements.' " Id. at 32 , 588 A. 2d 834 (quoting United States v. Berrios, 501 F. 2d 1207, 1211-12 (2d Cir.1974)). | 2 | 2 |
United States v. Armstronggreen2 sentences2000We conclude that a defendant who has raised issues during a pretrial motion to suppress sufficient to establish a colorable basis for a claim of selective enforcement, when considered in the light of the April 1999 Interim Report of the State Police Review Team Regarding Racial Profiling Allegations (hereinafter "Interim Report "), and then been convicted and sentenced, may assert a claim of selective enforcement in violation of the Federal or State Constitutions while his direct appeal is pending. [1] See United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 , 116 S.Ct. 1480, 1487 , 134 L.Ed. 2d 687, 2000We conclude that a defendant who has raised issues during a pretrial motion to suppress sufficient to establish a colorable basis for a claim of selective enforcement, when considered in the light of the April 1999 Interim Report of the State Police Review Team Regarding Racial Profiling Allegations (hereinafter "Interim Report "), and then been convicted and sentenced, may assert a claim of selective enforcement in violation of the Federal or State Constitutions while his direct appeal is pending. [1] See United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 , 116 S.Ct. 1480, 1487 , 134 L.Ed. 2d 687, | 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. Ballard
green
2 sentences2000We conclude that a defendant who has raised issues during a pretrial motion to suppress sufficient to establish a colorable basis for a claim of selective enforcement, when considered in the light of the April 1999 Interim Report of the State Police Review Team Regarding Racial Profiling Allegations (hereinafter "Interim Report "), and then been convicted and sentenced, may assert a claim of selective enforcement in violation of the Federal or State Constitutions while his direct appeal is pending. [1] See United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 , 116 S.Ct. 1480, 1487 , 134 L.Ed. 2d 687, 2000We conclude that a defendant who has raised issues during a pretrial motion to suppress sufficient to establish a colorable basis for a claim of selective enforcement, when considered in the light of the April 1999 Interim Report of the State Police Review Team Regarding Racial Profiling Allegations (hereinafter "Interim Report "), and then been convicted and sentenced, may assert a claim of selective enforcement in violation of the Federal or State Constitutions while his direct appeal is pending. [1] See United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 , 116 S.Ct. 1480, 1487 , 134 L.Ed. 2d 687, | 3 | 2000–2012 |
Mayflower Securities Co. v. Bureau of Securities
green
2 sentences2002However, the provision refers to the "minimum number [of individual or non-group policies] established by the board," and the good-faith exemption can be deemed a valid component in creating the "minimum number established by the board." Given the legislative history as well as the Act's overall intent, and recognizing the presumption in favor of regulations adopted by an agency which administers a subject area with specialized expertise, New Jersey State League of Municipalities v. Department of Community Affairs, 158 N.J. 211, 222 , 729 A. 2d 21 (1999), Mayflower Securities Co., Inc. v. Bure 2002However, the provision refers to the "minimum number [of individual or non-group policies] established by the board," and the good-faith exemption can be deemed a valid component in creating the "minimum number established by the board." Given the legislative history as well as the Act's overall intent, and recognizing the presumption in favor of regulations adopted by an agency which administers a subject area with specialized expertise, New Jersey State League of Municipalities v. Department of Community Affairs, 158 N.J. 211, 222 , 729 A. 2d 21 (1999), Mayflower Securities Co., Inc. v. Bure | 2 | 2002–2002 |
New Jersey State League of Municipalities v. Department of Community Affairs
green
2 sentences2002However, the provision refers to the "minimum number [of individual or non-group policies] established by the board," and the good-faith exemption can be deemed a valid component in creating the "minimum number established by the board." Given the legislative history as well as the Act's overall intent, and recognizing the presumption in favor of regulations adopted by an agency which administers a subject area with specialized expertise, New Jersey State League of Municipalities v. Department of Community Affairs, 158 N.J. 211, 222 , 729 A. 2d 21 (1999), Mayflower Securities Co., Inc. v. Bure 2002However, the provision refers to the "minimum number [of individual or non-group policies] established by the board," and the good-faith exemption can be deemed a valid component in creating the "minimum number established by the board." Given the legislative history as well as the Act's overall intent, and recognizing the presumption in favor of regulations adopted by an agency which administers a subject area with specialized expertise, New Jersey State League of Municipalities v. Department of Community Affairs, 158 N.J. 211, 222 , 729 A. 2d 21 (1999), Mayflower Securities Co., Inc. v. Bure | 2 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Halsey
green
1 sentence2019However, in order to obtain discovery of such records, a defendant must first demonstrate "a colorable basis for a claim of selective enforcement." Ibid. (quoting State v. Kennedy, 247 N.J. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In Re Nj Ihcp
green
1 sentence2004The panel acknowledged, however, that the regulation “presents a colorable basis for the claim that the Board exceeded its authority.” Id. at 521, 803 A.2d 639 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
State v. Williamson
green
2 sentences2001In State v. Williamson, 335 N.J.Super. 544 , 763 A. 2d 285 (App.Div.2000), we permitted a defendant to raise an issue of racial profiling by motion for new trial "while his direct appeal was pending," where defendant had raised issues "during a pretrial motion to suppress sufficient to establish a colorable basis for a claim of selective enforcement." Id. at 545 , 763 A. 2d 285 . 2001In State v. Williamson, 335 N.J.Super. 544 , 763 A. 2d 285 (App.Div.2000), we permitted a defendant to raise an issue of racial profiling by motion for new trial "while his direct appeal was pending," where defendant had raised issues "during a pretrial motion to suppress sufficient to establish a colorable basis for a claim of selective enforcement." Id. at 545 , 763 A. 2d 285 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2000We conclude that a defendant who has raised issues during a pretrial motion to suppress sufficient to establish a colorable basis for a claim of selective enforcement, when considered in the light of the April 1999 Interim Report of the State Police Review Team Regarding Racial Profiling Allegations (hereinafter "Interim Report "), and then been convicted and sentenced, may assert a claim of selective enforcement in violation of the Federal or State Constitutions while his direct appeal is pending. [1] See United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 , 116 S.Ct. 1480, 1487 , 134 L.Ed. 2d 687, 2000We conclude that a defendant who has raised issues during a pretrial motion to suppress sufficient to establish a colorable basis for a claim of selective enforcement, when considered in the light of the April 1999 Interim Report of the State Police Review Team Regarding Racial Profiling Allegations (hereinafter "Interim Report "), and then been convicted and sentenced, may assert a claim of selective enforcement in violation of the Federal or State Constitutions while his direct appeal is pending. [1] See United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 , 116 S.Ct. 1480, 1487 , 134 L.Ed. 2d 687, | 1 | 2000–2000 |
State v. Moore
neutral
2 sentences2000We conclude that a defendant who has raised issues during a pretrial motion to suppress sufficient to establish a colorable basis for a claim of selective enforcement, when considered in the light of the April 1999 Interim Report of the State Police Review Team Regarding Racial Profiling Allegations (hereinafter "Interim Report "), and then been convicted and sentenced, may assert a claim of selective enforcement in violation of the Federal or State Constitutions while his direct appeal is pending. [1] See United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 , 116 S.Ct. 1480, 1487 , 134 L.Ed. 2d 687, 2000We conclude that a defendant who has raised issues during a pretrial motion to suppress sufficient to establish a colorable basis for a claim of selective enforcement, when considered in the light of the April 1999 Interim Report of the State Police Review Team Regarding Racial Profiling Allegations (hereinafter "Interim Report "), and then been convicted and sentenced, may assert a claim of selective enforcement in violation of the Federal or State Constitutions while his direct appeal is pending. [1] See United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 465 , 116 S.Ct. 1480, 1487 , 134 L.Ed. 2d 687, | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.