11 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1998–2025 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lepis v. Lepisgreen1 sentence2024In making its findings, the court focused on the factors articulated in Lepis v. Lepis: (1) an increase in the cost of living; (2) increase or decrease in the supporting spouse's income; (3) illness, disability or infirmity arising after the original judgment; (4) the dependent A-3054-21 6 spouse's loss of a house or apartment, (5) the dependent spouse's cohabitation with another; (6) subsequent employment by the dependent spouse, and changes in the federal income tax law. 83 N.J. 139, 151 (1980) (internal citations omitted). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Almendarez-Torres v. United States
red
2 sentences2025In Almendarez- Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), the Court focused on an exception contemplated in the initial formulation of the basic Apprendi rule. 2024In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), the Court focused on an exception contemplated in the initial formulation of the basic Apprendi rule. | 7 | 2024–2025 |
In Re Determination of Executive Commission on Ethical Standards
green
1 sentence2012Id. at 220, 226 , 561 A.2d 542 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Hines v. Davidowitz
green
2 sentences1999After considering the various theories under which federal law may preempt a state statute, the court focused its inquiry on whether the Massachusetts statute constituted “an obstacle to the accomplishment of the Federal purpose [of the Section 8 program].” Id. 511 N.E.2d at 1106 (quoting Hines, supra, 312 U.S. at 67 , 61 S.Ct. at 404 , 85 L. 1999After considering the various theories under which federal law may preempt a state statute, the court focused its inquiry on whether the Massachusetts statute constituted “an obstacle to the accomplishment of the Federal purpose [of the Section 8 program].” Id. 511 N.E.2d at 1106 (quoting Hines, supra, 312 U.S. at 67 , 61 S.Ct. at 404 , 85 L. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Attorney General v. Brown
green
2 sentences1999After considering the various theories under which federal law may preempt a state statute, the court focused its inquiry on whether the Massachusetts statute constituted “an obstacle to the accomplishment of the Federal purpose [of the Section 8 program].” Id. 511 N.E.2d at 1106 (quoting Hines, supra, 312 U.S. at 67 , 61 S.Ct. at 404 , 85 L. 1999After considering the various theories under which federal law may preempt a state statute, the court focused its inquiry on whether the Massachusetts statute constituted “an obstacle to the accomplishment of the Federal purpose [of the Section 8 program].” Id. 511 N.E.2d at 1106 (quoting Hines, supra, 312 U.S. at 67 , 61 S.Ct. at 404 , 85 L. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Velasquez v. Franz
green
2 sentences1998Id. at 507-11 , 589 A.2d 143 . 1998Id. at 507-11 , 589 A.2d 143 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
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.