77 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1896–2026 12 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. Townsendgreen2 sentences2026"The corollary of that rule is the net opinion rule, which forbids the admission into evidence of an expert's conclusions that are not supported by factual evidence or other data." State v. Townsend, 186 N.J. 473, 494 (2006). 2026"The corollary of that rule is the net opinion rule, which forbids the admission into evidence of an expert's conclusions that are not supported by factual evidence or other data." State v. Townsend, 186 N.J. 473, 494 (2006). | 6 | 9 |
Friendship Manor, Inc. v. Greimangreen2 sentences2020"In the context of the race notice statute, constructive notice arises from the obligation of a claimant of a property interest to make reasonable and diligent inquiry as to existing claims or rights in and to real estate." Friendship Manor, Inc. v. Greiman, 244 N.J. 2020"In the context of the race notice statute, constructive notice arises from the obligation of a claimant of a property interest to make reasonable and diligent inquiry as to existing claims or rights in and to real estate." Friendship Manor, Inc. v. Greiman, 244 N.J. | 4 | 5 |
Buerkle v. United Parcel Servicegreen2 sentences2017Super. 172, 176 (App. Div. 1975) (quoting Buerkle v. United Parcel Serv., 7 A-1686-15T3 26 N.J. 1975A corollary to this rule is that an injury is compensable if it "arises out of a risk which is reasonably incidental to the conditions and circumstances of the employment." Buerkle v. United Parcel Service, 26 N.J. | 2 | 2 |
Deborah Townsend v. Noah Pierre (072357)green2 sentences2026Accordingly, an expert is required to "'give the why and wherefore' that supports the opinion, 'rather than a mere conclusion.'" Crispino v. Township of Sparta, 243 N.J. 234 , 257 (2020) (quoting Pierre, 221 N.J. at 54 ) (additional citations omitted). 2026Accordingly, an expert is required to "'give the why and wherefore' that supports the opinion, 'rather than a mere conclusion.'" Crispino v. Township of Sparta, 243 N.J. 234 , 257 (2020) (quoting Pierre, 221 N.J. at 54 ). | 1 | 3 |
Tide-Water Pipe Co. v. Blair Holding Co. Inc.green2 sentences2024"Equally well recognized is the corollary principle that there is, arising out of every easement, an implied right to do what is reasonably necessary for its complete enjoyment, that right to be exercised, however, in such a reasonable manner as to avoid unnecessary increases upon the landowner." Ibid. 2024"Equally well recognized is the corollary principle that there is, arising out of every easement, an implied right to do what is reasonably necessary for its complete enjoyment, that right to be exercised, however, in such a reasonable manner as to avoid unnecessary increases upon the landowner." Ibid. | 1 | 3 |
Butler v. Bonner & Barnewall, Inc.green2 sentences2016“In addition, we must also be mindful of the corollary rule of construction that if the clause in question is one of exclusion or exception designed to limit the protection afforded by the general coverage provisions of the policy, a strict interpretation is in order.” Bello v. Hurley Limousines, 249 N.J.Super. 31, 40-41 , 591 A.2d 1356 (1991) (citing Butler, supra, 56 N.J. at 574 , 267 A.2d 527 ; Mazzilli, supra, 35 N.J. at 7-8 , 170 A.2d 800 ). 2016“In addition, we must also be mindful of the corollary rule of construction that if the clause in question is one of exclusion or exception designed to limit the protection afforded by the general coverage provisions of the policy, a strict interpretation is in order.” Bello v. Hurley Limousines, 249 N.J.Super. 31, 40-41 , 591 A.2d 1356 (1991) (citing Butler, supra, 56 N.J. at 574 , 267 A.2d 527 ; Mazzilli, supra, 35 N.J. at 7-8 , 170 A.2d 800 ). | 1 | 3 |
Spindler v. Universal Chain Corp.green2 sentences2017Super. at 556 (citing Spindler v. Universal Chain Corp., 11 N.J. 34, 39 (1952); Shaudys v. IMO Indus., Inc., 285 N.J. 2009Spindler v. Universal Chain Corp., 11 N.J. 34, 39 , 93 A. 2d 171 (1952); Shaudys v. IMO Indus., Inc., 285 N.J.Super. 407, 414-17 , 667 A. 2d 204 (App.Div.1995); Verge, supra, 272 N.J.Super. at 128-29 , 639 A. 2d 378 . | 1 | 2 |
Shaudys v. IMO Industries, Inc.green2 sentences2017Super. at 556 (citing Spindler v. Universal Chain Corp., 11 N.J. 34, 39 (1952); Shaudys v. IMO Indus., Inc., 285 N.J. 2009Spindler v. Universal Chain Corp., 11 N.J. 34, 39 , 93 A. 2d 171 (1952); Shaudys v. IMO Indus., Inc., 285 N.J.Super. 407, 414-17 , 667 A. 2d 204 (App.Div.1995); Verge, supra, 272 N.J.Super. at 128-29 , 639 A. 2d 378 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Douglasgreen2 sentences2005"A corollary of this principle is that the State may appeal an illegal sentence without express authorization in the criminal code or rules of court." State v. Parolin, 339 N.J.Super. 10, 13-14 , 770 A. 2d 1204 (App.Div.2001), rev'd on other grounds, 171 N.J. 223 , 793 A. 2d 638 (2002); see State v. Sheppard, 125 N.J.Super. 332, 336-39 , 310 A. 2d 731 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 64 N.J. 318 , 315 A. 2d 407 (1973). 2001State v. Sheppard, 125 N.J.Super. 332, 336-39 , 310 A. 2d 731 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 64 N.J. 318 , 315 A. 2d 407 (1973); see also State v. Mercadante, 299 N.J.Super. 522, 529 , 691 A. 2d 819 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 150 N.J. 26 , 695 A. 2d 668 (1997); State v. Eigenmann, 280 N.J.Super. 331, 337-38, 347-48 , 655 A. 2d 452 (App.Div.1995); State v. Leslie, 269 N.J.Super. 78, 86 , 634 A. 2d 572 (App. Div.1993), certif. denied, 136 N.J. 29 , 641 A. 2d 1040 (1994). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Sheppardgreen2 sentences2005"A corollary of this principle is that the State may appeal an illegal sentence without express authorization in the criminal code or rules of court." State v. Parolin, 339 N.J.Super. 10, 13-14 , 770 A. 2d 1204 (App.Div.2001), rev'd on other grounds, 171 N.J. 223 , 793 A. 2d 638 (2002); see State v. Sheppard, 125 N.J.Super. 332, 336-39 , 310 A. 2d 731 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 64 N.J. 318 , 315 A. 2d 407 (1973). 2001State v. Sheppard, 125 N.J.Super. 332, 336-39 , 310 A. 2d 731 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 64 N.J. 318 , 315 A. 2d 407 (1973); see also State v. Mercadante, 299 N.J.Super. 522, 529 , 691 A. 2d 819 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 150 N.J. 26 , 695 A. 2d 668 (1997); State v. Eigenmann, 280 N.J.Super. 331, 337-38, 347-48 , 655 A. 2d 452 (App.Div.1995); State v. Leslie, 269 N.J.Super. 78, 86 , 634 A. 2d 572 (App. Div.1993), certif. denied, 136 N.J. 29 , 641 A. 2d 1040 (1994). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Sheppardgreen2 sentences2005"A corollary of this principle is that the State may appeal an illegal sentence without express authorization in the criminal code or rules of court." State v. Parolin, 339 N.J.Super. 10, 13-14 , 770 A. 2d 1204 (App.Div.2001), rev'd on other grounds, 171 N.J. 223 , 793 A. 2d 638 (2002); see State v. Sheppard, 125 N.J.Super. 332, 336-39 , 310 A. 2d 731 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 64 N.J. 318 , 315 A. 2d 407 (1973). 2005"A corollary of this principle is that the State may appeal an illegal sentence without express authorization in the criminal code or rules of court." State v. Parolin, 339 N.J.Super. 10, 13-14 , 770 A. 2d 1204 (App.Div.2001), rev'd on other grounds, 171 N.J. 223 , 793 A. 2d 638 (2002); see State v. Sheppard, 125 N.J.Super. 332, 336-39 , 310 A. 2d 731 (App.Div.), certif. denied, 64 N.J. 318 , 315 A. 2d 407 (1973). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Tunggreen1 sentence2026An important corollary to this rule is that an officer may not "offer an opinion that a defendant's statement is a lie." State v. Tung, 460 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2024As noted, the warrant preference is a bedrock principle of our search-and-seizure jurisprudence, as is the corollary principle that warrant exceptions are "jealously and carefully drawn." Jones v. United States, 357 U.S. 493, 499 (1958); see also State v. Johnson, 476 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
In re Accutane Litig.green1 sentence2021"Charged with determining whether to admit expert testimony, the trial court is responsible for advancing the truth-seeking function of our system of justice . . . ." In re Accutane Litig., 234 N.J. 340, 389 (2018). | 1 | 1 |
Bailey v. Town of Forksgreen1 sentence2021A-1285-20 29 [Id. at § 41 (emphasis added).] Regarding "custodians" with such obligations, Comment f of Section 41 explains that "the custodial relationship need not be complete physical custody . . . so long as there is some custody and control of a person posing dangers to others." Illustrating that point, the Comment to Section 41 cites to Bailey v. Town of Forks, 737 P.2d 1257, 1260-62 (Wash. 1987), wherein the Supreme Court of Washington determined that a police officer who did not take custody of an intoxicated driver pursuant to his statutory duty was held liable to a plaintiff who was | 1 | 1 |
TRACEY L. VIZZONI, ETC. VS. B.M.D. (L-0575-15, SOMERSET COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)green1 sentence2021A-1285-20 29 [Id. at § 41 (emphasis added).] Regarding "custodians" with such obligations, Comment f of Section 41 explains that "the custodial relationship need not be complete physical custody . . . so long as there is some custody and control of a person posing dangers to others." Illustrating that point, the Comment to Section 41 cites to Bailey v. Town of Forks, 737 P.2d 1257, 1260-62 (Wash. 1987), wherein the Supreme Court of Washington determined that a police officer who did not take custody of an intoxicated driver pursuant to his statutory duty was held liable to a plaintiff who was | 1 | 1 |
IN THE MATTER OF THE CIVIL COMMITMENT OF A.Y. SVP-545-09 (ESSEX COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED)green1 sentence2020However, the net opinion rule "does not require experts to organize or support their opinions in a specific manner 'that opposing counsel deems preferable.'" In re Civil Commitment of A.Y., 458 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Harrisgreen1 sentence2019State v. Harris, 384 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Grzanka v. Pfeifergreen1 sentence2017An expert's conclusion is inadmissible if it is "based merely on unfounded speculation and unquantified possibilities." Townsend v. Pierre, 221 N.J. 36, 55 (2015) (quoting Grzanka v. Pfeifer, 301 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Salierno v. Micro Stamping Co.green1 sentence2017"A corollary to this rule is that an injury is compensable if it 'arises out of a risk which is reasonably incidental to the conditions and circumstances of the employment.'" Salierno v. Micro Stamping Co., 136 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
| Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Maryland Casualty Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. LHgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Reynolds v. Simsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Afanadorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Mercadantegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Eigenmanngreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Mercadantegreen | 1 | 1 |
| cluster 440461green | 1 | 1 |
| Penry v. Lynaughred | 1 | 1 |
| Skipper v. South Carolinagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Eddings v. Oklahomagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Procunier v. Martinezred | 1 | 1 |
| Anthony Souza v. Anthony P. Travisonogreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cox v. RKA CORP.
green
2 sentences2020"As a corollary to that rule, parties are generally charged with constructive notice of instruments that are properly recorded." Cox, 164 N.J. at 496 . 2020"As a corollary to that rule, parties are generally charged with constructive notice of instruments that are properly recorded." Cox, 164 N.J. at 496 . | 5 | 2008–2021 |
State v. Gelman
green
2 sentences2011Moreover, even if the Code commentary, see, e.g., infra at 547, 20 A.3d at 1149 (quoting 2 Final Report of the New Jersey Criminal Law Revision Commission, commentary to § 2C:44-5, at 336 (1971) (“Subsection (b) is addressed to the problem of a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon a person who is already serving a term under a sentence imposed for an earlier offense.”)), could be considered to support another interpretation, our rules of statutory construction require the application of lenity, a corollary to the doctrine of strict construction, which dictates that criminal statutes must be i 2011Moreover, even if the Code commentary, see, e.g., infra at 547, 20 A.3d at 1149 (quoting 2 Final Report of the New Jersey Criminal Law Revision Commission, commentary to § 2C:44-5, at 336 (1971) (“Subsection (b) is addressed to the problem of a sentence of imprisonment imposed upon a person who is already serving a term under a sentence imposed for an earlier offense.”)), could be considered to support another interpretation, our rules of statutory construction require the application of lenity, a corollary to the doctrine of strict construction, which dictates that criminal statutes must be i | 3 | 2011–2011 |
State in Interest of JR
green
2 sentences2011The trial court also acknowledged a corollary principle, that in considering whether the State has established probable cause, “the State is to be awarded every reasonable inference.” State in the Interest of J.R., 234 N.J.Super. 388 , 395, 560 A.2d 1279 (Ch.Div.1988) (citation omitted). 2011The trial court also acknowledged a corollary principle, that in considering whether the State has established probable cause, “the State is to be awarded every reasonable inference.” State in the Interest of J.R., 234 N.J.Super. 388 , 395, 560 A.2d 1279 (Ch.Div.1988) (citation omitted). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Abelson's, Inc. v. New Jersey State Board of Optometrists
green
2 sentences1989It is a corollary of this principle that the "rule and regulation ... cannot subvert or enlarge upon the statutory policy...." Id. at 424 . 1988It is a corollary of this principle that "the rules and regulations ... cannot subvert or enlarge upon the *135 statutory policy...." Id. at 424 . | 2 | 1988–1989 |
State v. McQuaid
green
2 sentences2022The corollary to that principle is that "a defendant may not use a petition for post-conviction relief as an opportunity to relitigate a claim already decided on the merits." Ibid. 2022Such procedural bars, the Court noted in McQuaid, "exist in order to promote finality in judicial proceedings." Ibid. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Sovereign Bank v. Gillis
green
1 sentence2021As a corollary to that rule, "[l]enders and other parties are generally charged with constructive notice of instruments that are properly recorded." Gillis, 432 N.J. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. McNeil
green
1 sentence2019"Under the 'net opinion' rule, an opinion lacking in such foundation and consisting of bare conclusions unsupported by factual evidence is inadmissible." McNeil, 405 N.J. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Sexton v. County of Cumberland
green
2 sentences2017"In the context of aggravation of a preexisting condition, the corollary to that rule is that disqualification under the 'arising out of' criterion occurs when the preexisting condition is the sole cause of the injury for which compensation is sought." Sexton, supra, 404 N.J. 2017"In the context of aggravation of a preexisting condition, the corollary to that rule is that disqualification under the 'arising out of' criterion occurs when the preexisting condition is the sole cause of the injury for which compensation is sought." Sexton, supra, 404 N.J. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Crawford v. Washington
green
2 sentences2016The Cross-Examination Right Our State Supreme Court has also carefully applied a key corollary principle of Crawford, which instructs that the Confrontation Clause does not prohibit the use of a declarant's prior testimonial statements, so long as "the [declarant] appears for cross-examination at trial[.]" Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at 59 n.9, 124 S. Ct. at 1369 n.9, 158 L. 2016The Cross-Examination Right Our State Supreme Court has also carefully applied a key corollary principle of Crawford, which instructs that the Confrontation Clause does not prohibit the use of a declarant's prior testimonial statements, so long as "the [declarant] appears for cross-examination at trial[.]" Crawford, supra, 541 U.S. at 59 n.9, 124 S. Ct. at 1369 n.9, 158 L. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Mazzilli v. Acc. & Cas. Ins. Co. of Winterthur
green
2 sentences2016“In addition, we must also be mindful of the corollary rule of construction that if the clause in question is one of exclusion or exception designed to limit the protection afforded by the general coverage provisions of the policy, a strict interpretation is in order.” Bello v. Hurley Limousines, 249 N.J.Super. 31, 40-41 , 591 A.2d 1356 (1991) (citing Butler, supra, 56 N.J. at 574 , 267 A.2d 527 ; Mazzilli, supra, 35 N.J. at 7-8 , 170 A.2d 800 ). 2016“In addition, we must also be mindful of the corollary rule of construction that if the clause in question is one of exclusion or exception designed to limit the protection afforded by the general coverage provisions of the policy, a strict interpretation is in order.” Bello v. Hurley Limousines, 249 N.J.Super. 31, 40-41 , 591 A.2d 1356 (1991) (citing Butler, supra, 56 N.J. at 574 , 267 A.2d 527 ; Mazzilli, supra, 35 N.J. at 7-8 , 170 A.2d 800 ). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Bello v. Hurley Limousines, Inc. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Lorraine Gormley v. Latanya Wood-El (069717) green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Savarese v. Corcoran neutral | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Savarese v. Corcoran green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Martinetti v. Hickman green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Kopak v. Polzer green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Lv v. Rs green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Verge v. County of Morris green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. Parsons green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Ridgewood Educ. v. Ridgewood Bd. green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Stott green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Creanga v. Jardal green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Papasavvas green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Tavares neutral | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Matter of Commitment of Dm green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Parolin green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Tavares green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Parolin green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| In Re Estate of Lash green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Jugan v. Friedman green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Powell v. McCormack green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Miranda v. Arizona green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Gangemi v. Rosengard green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| State v. Presha green | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| State v. Leslie green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| State v. Bohuk green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| Zazzo v. Zazzo green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Feinberg v. STATE, DEP green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| SALEM GROUP, FARMERS MUTUAL FIRE INS. CO. v. Oliver green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Eli Pritzker v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
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.