11 New Jersey opinions name it 3 courts 1895–2025 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Estate of Herrmanngreen1 sentence2024Exceptions which state no reason for criticism of the whole report, specify no items of which the exceptant complains, and no particulars wherein the master is alleged to have erred, cannot be entertained." [In re Est. of Herrmann, 127 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cummingsgreen1 sentence2023Defendant further claims that as a result of those purported failures, the trial court excluded from evidence "anything pertaining [ to defendant's] psychiatric evaluation, mental hospitalization, or prior mental [health] history." "[W]hen a petitioner claims his trial counsel inadequately investigated a case, he must assert facts that an investigation would have revealed, supported by affidavits or certifications based on the personal knowledge of the affiant or A-1838-21 12 the person making the certification." State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 353 (2013) (quoting State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Oscar Porter (069223)green1 sentence2023Defendant further claims that as a result of those purported failures, the trial court excluded from evidence "anything pertaining [ to defendant's] psychiatric evaluation, mental hospitalization, or prior mental [health] history." "[W]hen a petitioner claims his trial counsel inadequately investigated a case, he must assert facts that an investigation would have revealed, supported by affidavits or certifications based on the personal knowledge of the affiant or A-1838-21 12 the person making the certification." State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 353 (2013) (quoting State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
In re Tylergreen2 sentences2006N.J.S.A 10:29-3; see, In re Tyler, 167 N.J.Super. 115, 119-20 , 400 A. 2d 541 (Law Div.1979) (discussing the contents of a statement under N.J.S.A. 19:29-3 and stating that the "ground of action need not be set forth in the statement. 2006N.J.S.A 10:29-3; see, In re Tyler, 167 N.J.Super. 115, 119-20 , 400 A. 2d 541 (Law Div.1979) (discussing the contents of a statement under N.J.S.A. 19:29-3 and stating that the "ground of action need not be set forth in the statement. | 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. W.S.B.
green
1 sentence2025As we have explained, we are satisfied she has already met that burden with respect to two of the three elements of the definition of "drug overdose." It remains for her to prove that a lay person in R.S.'s position would believe defendant's suicidal ideations were the result of her substance use, applying the "err on the side of caution" approach recognized in W.S.B., id. at 228 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Concepcion
green
2 sentences2012Although he did not pursue a self-defense theory at trial, defendant also asserts that the trial court should have sua sponte instructed the jury regarding his right to use force in his own defense, pursuant to State v. Concepcion, 111 N.J. 373 , 545 A.2d 119 (1988), and State v. Gartland, 149 N.J. 456 , 694 A.2d 564 (1997). 2012Although he did not pursue a self-defense theory at trial, defendant also asserts that the trial court should have sua sponte instructed the jury regarding his right to use force in his own defense, pursuant to State v. Concepcion, 111 N.J. 373 , 545 A.2d 119 (1988), and State v. Gartland, 149 N.J. 456 , 694 A.2d 564 (1997). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Gartland
green
2 sentences2012Although he did not pursue a self-defense theory at trial, defendant also asserts that the trial court should have sua sponte instructed the jury regarding his right to use force in his own defense, pursuant to State v. Concepcion, 111 N.J. 373 , 545 A.2d 119 (1988), and State v. Gartland, 149 N.J. 456 , 694 A.2d 564 (1997). 2012Although he did not pursue a self-defense theory at trial, defendant also asserts that the trial court should have sua sponte instructed the jury regarding his right to use force in his own defense, pursuant to State v. Concepcion, 111 N.J. 373 , 545 A.2d 119 (1988), and State v. Gartland, 149 N.J. 456 , 694 A.2d 564 (1997). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Kimball Intern. v. Northfield Metal
green
2 sentences2004Id. at 607 , 760 A.2d 794 . 2004Id. at 607 , 760 A.2d 794 . | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermarkets, Inc.
green
2 sentences1998Defendant Laurel Grove Cemetery has filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the rule of liability most recently articulated in Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermarkets, 149 N.J. 496 , 694 A. 2d 1017 (1997), should not be applied to cemeteries or, if the rule applies, the plaintiff has not satisfied the criteria set forth in Clohesy for establishing a duty to provide security. 1998Defendant Laurel Grove Cemetery has filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the rule of liability most recently articulated in Clohesy v. Food Circus Supermarkets, 149 N.J. 496 , 694 A. 2d 1017 (1997), should not be applied to cemeteries or, if the rule applies, the plaintiff has not satisfied the criteria set forth in Clohesy for establishing a duty to provide security. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Parker v. Citizens Committee for the Hudson Valley
green
2 sentences1987Only the third example clearly involved a challenge for cause that the trial court required counsel to assert in the juror's presence, rather than at side bar. [3] In State v. Smith, 55 N.J. 476, 483 , cert. den., 400 U.S. 949 , 91 S.Ct. 232 , 27 L.Ed. 2d 256 (1970), we held that the decision to hear challenges for cause at side bar or in open court is one *27 within the discretion of the trial court. 1987Only the third example clearly involved a challenge for cause that the trial court required counsel to assert in the juror’s presence, rather than at side bar. 3 In State v. Smith, 55 N.J. 476, 483 , cert. den., 400 U.S. 949 , 91 S.Ct. 232 , 27 L.Ed.2d 256 (1970), we held that the decision to hear challenges for cause at side bar or in open court is one .within the discretion of the trial court. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Joiner v. Deckard
green
2 sentences1987Only the third example clearly involved a challenge for cause that the trial court required counsel to assert in the juror's presence, rather than at side bar. [3] In State v. Smith, 55 N.J. 476, 483 , cert. den., 400 U.S. 949 , 91 S.Ct. 232 , 27 L.Ed. 2d 256 (1970), we held that the decision to hear challenges for cause at side bar or in open court is one *27 within the discretion of the trial court. 1987Only the third example clearly involved a challenge for cause that the trial court required counsel to assert in the juror’s presence, rather than at side bar. 3 In State v. Smith, 55 N.J. 476, 483 , cert. den., 400 U.S. 949 , 91 S.Ct. 232 , 27 L.Ed.2d 256 (1970), we held that the decision to hear challenges for cause at side bar or in open court is one .within the discretion of the trial court. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Haushalter v. United States
green
2 sentences1987Only the third example clearly involved a challenge for cause that the trial court required counsel to assert in the juror's presence, rather than at side bar. [3] In State v. Smith, 55 N.J. 476, 483 , cert. den., 400 U.S. 949 , 91 S.Ct. 232 , 27 L.Ed. 2d 256 (1970), we held that the decision to hear challenges for cause at side bar or in open court is one *27 within the discretion of the trial court. 1987Only the third example clearly involved a challenge for cause that the trial court required counsel to assert in the juror’s presence, rather than at side bar. 3 In State v. Smith, 55 N.J. 476, 483 , cert. den., 400 U.S. 949 , 91 S.Ct. 232 , 27 L.Ed.2d 256 (1970), we held that the decision to hear challenges for cause at side bar or in open court is one .within the discretion of the trial court. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences1987Only the third example clearly involved a challenge for cause that the trial court required counsel to assert in the juror's presence, rather than at side bar. [3] In State v. Smith, 55 N.J. 476, 483 , cert. den., 400 U.S. 949 , 91 S.Ct. 232 , 27 L.Ed. 2d 256 (1970), we held that the decision to hear challenges for cause at side bar or in open court is one *27 within the discretion of the trial court. 1987Only the third example clearly involved a challenge for cause that the trial court required counsel to assert in the juror’s presence, rather than at side bar. 3 In State v. Smith, 55 N.J. 476, 483 , cert. den., 400 U.S. 949 , 91 S.Ct. 232 , 27 L.Ed.2d 256 (1970), we held that the decision to hear challenges for cause at side bar or in open court is one .within the discretion of the trial court. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Withrow v. Larkin
green
2 sentences1976The court held that there was an absence of proof that the combination of the investigative and adjudicative functions in one board constituted an unconstitutional risk of bias and said that "The mere exposure to evidence presented in nonadversary investigative procedures is insufficient in itself to impugn the fairness of the Board members at a later adversary hearing." 421 U.S. at 55 , 95 S.Ct. at 1469 . 1976The court held that there was an absence of proof that the combination of the investigative and adjudicative functions in one board constituted an unconstitutional risk of bias and said that "The mere exposure to evidence presented in nonadversary investigative procedures is insufficient in itself to impugn the fairness of the Board members at a later adversary hearing." 421 U.S. at 55 , 95 S.Ct. at 1469 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
Goodwin v. Smith
green
1 sentence1900L. (2d ed.) 28, the doctrine is thus laid down “ If, regardless of terms, it is borne in mind that when the-issue is joined he has the burden of proof who seeks to-mo ve the court to act in his favor, the question whether the grounds of his claim are alleged affirmatively or negatively is really of no consequence. * * * Therefore, where the-proof of negative matter is essential to the successful maintenance of a cause of action, this may necessitate a negativeaverment, and the plaintiff has the burden of proving it' because, looking at the substance of the issue as a whole, lie-must be regarde | 1 | 1900–1900 |
Packard v. Bergen Neck Railway Co.
green
1 sentence1895Packard v. Bergen Neck Railroad Co., 25 Vroom 553, 558 ; Crater v. Binninger, 4 Id. 513. | 1 | 1895–1895 |
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.