77 New Jersey opinions name it 3 courts 1965–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2025Defendant had the opportunity – and the burden – at the remand hearing to rebut the "strong presumption" plea counsel's decision not to file the suppression motion fell "within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance" and "might be considered sound trial strategy." Arthur, 184 N.J. at 319 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 ) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2025Defendant had the opportunity – and the burden – at the remand hearing to rebut the "strong presumption" plea counsel's decision not to file the suppression motion fell "within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance" and "might be considered sound trial strategy." Arthur, 184 N.J. at 319 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 ) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 5 |
State v. Fritzgreen2 sentences2025The judge highlighted the relevant testimony of defendant and plea counsel, and found both lacked credibility. 3 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987) (requiring a defendant seeking PCR on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds demonstrate: (1) the particular manner in which counsel's performance was deficient; and (2) the deficiency prejudiced defendant's right to a fair trial). 1994See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 , reh’g denied, 467 U.S. 1267 , 104 S.Ct. 3562 , 82 L.Ed.2d 864 (1984); State v. Savage, 120 N.J. 594, 617-18 , 577 A.2d 455 (1990); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 , 519 A.2d 336 (1987). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Afanadorgreen2 sentences2004See State v. Afanador, 151 N.J. 41, 53 , 697 A.2d 529 (1997). [Milne, supra, 355 N.J.Super. at 370-71 , 810 A.2d 588 .] Further, I note that the Appellate Division limned a fair procedure for the remand hearing including the requirement that defendant prove that the pre-Humanik statute dissuaded him from presenting a diminished-capacity defense and that there is a legitimate jury question regarding whether he suffered from diminished capacity at the time of the crime. 2004See State v. Afanador, 151 N.J. 41, 53 , 697 A.2d 529 (1997). [Milne, supra, 355 N.J.Super. at 370-71 , 810 A.2d 588 .] Further, I note that the Appellate Division limned a fair procedure for the remand hearing including the requirement that defendant prove that the pre-Humanik statute dissuaded him from presenting a diminished-capacity defense and that there is a legitimate jury question regarding whether he suffered from diminished capacity at the time of the crime. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Fuquagreen2 sentences2024Ante at ___ (slip op. at 13) (quoting State v. Fuqua, 234 N.J. 583, 591 (2018)). 2024Ante at ___ (slip op. at 13) (quoting State v. Fuqua, 234 N.J. 583, 591 (2018)). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Gilmoregreen2 sentences2009Gilmore, 103 N.J. 508 , 511 A.2d 1150 (1986). 2 State v. Watkins, 114 N.J. 259 , 553 A.2d 1344 (1989). 3 Defendant was represented at the remand hearing by an attorney other than the lawyer who had represented defendant at trial. 2009Gilmore, 103 N.J. 508 , 511 A.2d 1150 (1986). 2 State v. Watkins, 114 N.J. 259 , 553 A.2d 1344 (1989). 3 Defendant was represented at the remand hearing by an attorney other than the lawyer who had represented defendant at trial. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Slatergreen2 sentences2025PCR counsel was appointed and filed an extensive brief in support of the petition raising other arguments, including trial counsel's failure to file a direct appeal following the remand hearing and trial counsel's concession during the remand hearing that defendant did not assert a "colorable claim of innocence." See Slater, 198 N.J. at 158-59 . 2019She considered the evidence adduced at the remand hearing and applied it to the factors delineated in State v. Slater, 198 N.J. 145, 157-58 (2009), finding no basis to vacate defendant's plea. | 1 | 3 |
State v. Osoriogreen2 sentences2016At the remand hearing, the prosecutor stated, “Juror Number 9, from Newark, and Juror Number 10, from East Orange, both Hispanic females seated next to each other, were excused because they were ‘giggling [and] high[-]fiving when a juror in the back row was excused’ and were ‘making faces[.]’” Id. at 495 , 973 A.2d 365 . 2016At the remand hearing, the prosecutor stated, “Juror Number 9, from Newark, and Juror Number 10, from East Orange, both Hispanic females seated next to each other, were excused because they were ‘giggling [and] high[-]fiving when a juror in the back row was excused’ and were ‘making faces[.]’” Id. at 495 , 973 A.2d 365 . | 1 | 2 |
Lopez v. Swyergreen2 sentences2004See also Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267, 275 , 300 A. 2d 563 (1973). [4] LANDAU, J.A.D., (retired and temporarily assigned on recall), (dissenting). 2004See also Lopez v. Swyer, 62 N.J. 267, 275 , 300 A. 2d 563 (1973). [4] LANDAU, J.A.D., (retired and temporarily assigned on recall), (dissenting). | 1 | 2 |
ABBOTT BY ABBOTT v. Burkegreen2 sentences2000Based on its demonstrated record of success, this Court adopted the recommendations of the Commissioner and of Judge King, who presided at the remand hearing, that the Abbott districts be required "to adopt some version of a proven, effective whole school design with SFARoots and Wings as the presumptive elementary school model." Abbott V, supra, 153 N.J. at 501 , 710 A. 2d 450 . 2000Based on its demonstrated record of success, this Court adopted the recommendations of the Commissioner and of Judge King, who presided at the remand hearing, that the Abbott districts be required "to adopt some version of a proven, effective whole school design with SFARoots and Wings as the presumptive elementary school model." Abbott V, supra, 153 N.J. at 501 , 710 A. 2d 450 . | 1 | 2 |
Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.green2 sentences1994See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 , reh’g denied, 467 U.S. 1267 , 104 S.Ct. 3562 , 82 L.Ed.2d 864 (1984); State v. Savage, 120 N.J. 594, 617-18 , 577 A.2d 455 (1990); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 , 519 A.2d 336 (1987). 1988Although defendant's petition for post-conviction relief was couched in constitutional language, see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed. 2d 674 (1984), reh'g den. 467 U.S. 1267 , 104 S.Ct. 3562 , 82 L.Ed. 2d 864 (1984); United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648 , 104 S.Ct. 2039 , 80 L.Ed. 2d 657 (1984); State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 *571 (1987), the factual predicate for his claimed Sixth Amendment deprivation also undergirds his assertion as to the involuntariness of the plea. | 1 | 2 |
New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. A.R.G.green2 sentences2026Servs. v. A.R.G., 179 N.J. 264, 286 (2004). 2026We reiterate that by allowing defendant to A-3011-24 27 testify at the remand hearing, the trial court afforded defendant the most "basic indicia of due process"—"a meaningful opportunity to be heard." A.R.G., 179 N.J. at 286 . | 1 | 1 |
New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. M.M.green1 sentence2021Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. M.M., 189 N.J. 261, 288 (2007). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Waysgreen1 sentence2021See Ways, 180 N.J. at 196-97 ; Carter, 69 N.J. at 427 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Golingreen1 sentence2021Following a trial de novo in the Law Division, the judge, adhering to Rule 3:23-8(a)(2), made independent findings of fact, giving "due regard to the municipal [court] judge's opportunity to view the witnesses and assess credibility," and reviewed the municipal court judge's conclusions of law de novo, see State v. Golin, 363 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
| Jae Lee v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Deverman v. Stevens Builders, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
Solari Industries, Inc. v. Maladygreen1 sentence2020See Solari, 55 N.J. at 586 (suggesting that following a remand hearing, a one-year limitation on an employee may be appropriate for actual or prospective customers with whom the employee had "substantial dealings" during his employment). | 1 | 1 |
| Pt v. Msgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Roe v. Flores-Ortegagreen | 1 | 1 |
| New Jersey Div. of Youth v. Rmgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Contest of November 8, 2011 General Election of Office of New Jersey General Assembly, Fourth Legislative Districtgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Barnettegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Romerogreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Wheelergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Kinggreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Artwellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Milnegreen | 1 | 1 |
| In re Allegations of Physical Abuse at Blackacre Academygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitzgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Pennsylvania v. Mimmsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Detrickgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| State v. Stantongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Henderson
green
2 sentences2012Although we do not apply the holding in Henderson because it is prospective only, see Henderson, supra, 208 N.J. at 302 , 27 A.3d 872 we consider relevant scientific evidence evaluated at the remand hearing and by this Court. 2012Although we do not apply the holding in Henderson because it is prospective only, see Henderson, supra, 208 N.J. at 302 , 27 A.3d 872 we consider relevant scientific evidence evaluated at the remand hearing and by this Court. | 5 | 2012–2020 |
Parker v. New York
green
2 sentences1990See State v. Loray, 46 N.J. 179, 186-87 , 215 A. 2d 539 (1965) (citing State v. Hutchins, 43 N.J. 85 , 202 A. 2d 678 (1964) (legality of search and seizure), Appellate Division reversed and convictions affirmed on return of remand, 44 N.J. 49 , 207 A. 2d 163 (1965); State v. Doyle, 40 N.J. 320 , 191 A. 2d 478 (1963) (legality of search and seizure), convictions affirmed on return of remand, 42 N.J. 334 , 200 A. 2d 606 (1964); State v. LaPierre, 39 N.J. 156 , 188 A. 2d 10 (voluntariness of confessions; convictions affirmed), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 852 , 83 S.Ct. 1920 , 10 L.Ed. 2d 1073 (1963); 1990See State v. Loray, 46 N.J. 179, 186-87 , 215 A.2d 539 (1965) (citing State v. Hutchins, 43 N.J. 85 , 202 A.2d 678 (1964) (legality of search and seizure), Appellate Division reversed and convictions affirmed on return of remand, 44 N.J. 49 , 207 A.2d 163 (1965); State v. Doyle, 40 N.J. 320 , 191 A.2d 478 (1963) (legality of search and seizure), convictions affirmed on return of remand, 42 N.J. 334 , 200 A.2d 606 (1964); State v. LaPierre, 39 N.J. 156 , 188 A.2d 10 (voluntariness of confessions; convictions affirmed), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 852 , 83 S.Ct. 1920, 10 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1963); State v. | 3 | 1965–1990 |
Raburn v. Cox
green
2 sentences1990See State v. Loray, 46 N.J. 179, 186-87 , 215 A. 2d 539 (1965) (citing State v. Hutchins, 43 N.J. 85 , 202 A. 2d 678 (1964) (legality of search and seizure), Appellate Division reversed and convictions affirmed on return of remand, 44 N.J. 49 , 207 A. 2d 163 (1965); State v. Doyle, 40 N.J. 320 , 191 A. 2d 478 (1963) (legality of search and seizure), convictions affirmed on return of remand, 42 N.J. 334 , 200 A. 2d 606 (1964); State v. LaPierre, 39 N.J. 156 , 188 A. 2d 10 (voluntariness of confessions; convictions affirmed), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 852 , 83 S.Ct. 1920 , 10 L.Ed. 2d 1073 (1963); 1990See State v. Loray, 46 N.J. 179, 186-87 , 215 A.2d 539 (1965) (citing State v. Hutchins, 43 N.J. 85 , 202 A.2d 678 (1964) (legality of search and seizure), Appellate Division reversed and convictions affirmed on return of remand, 44 N.J. 49 , 207 A.2d 163 (1965); State v. Doyle, 40 N.J. 320 , 191 A.2d 478 (1963) (legality of search and seizure), convictions affirmed on return of remand, 42 N.J. 334 , 200 A.2d 606 (1964); State v. LaPierre, 39 N.J. 156 , 188 A.2d 10 (voluntariness of confessions; convictions affirmed), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 852 , 83 S.Ct. 1920, 10 L.Ed.2d 1073 (1963); State v. | 3 | 1965–1990 |
State v. Arthur
green
2 sentences2025Defendant had the opportunity – and the burden – at the remand hearing to rebut the "strong presumption" plea counsel's decision not to file the suppression motion fell "within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance" and "might be considered sound trial strategy." Arthur, 184 N.J. at 319 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 ) (internal quotation marks omitted). 2025Defendant had the opportunity – and the burden – at the remand hearing to rebut the "strong presumption" plea counsel's decision not to file the suppression motion fell "within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance" and "might be considered sound trial strategy." Arthur, 184 N.J. at 319 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 ) (internal quotation marks omitted). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Shea v. Shea
green
2 sentences2017That principle was applied by the panel in this case, which held that if a remand hearing revealed that plaintiff manipulated the parties’ negotiations to gain an advantage in an anticipated relocation dispute, ‘“fundamental fairness’ requires the trial court to apply the ‘best interests of the child’ standard rather than the Baures standard.” Bisbing, supra, 445 N.J.Super. at 217 , 137 A.3d 535 (quoting Shea, supra, 384 N.J.Super. at 273-74 , 894 A.2d 711 ). *328 C. 2017That principle was applied by the panel in this case, which held that if a remand hearing revealed that plaintiff manipulated the parties’ negotiations to gain an advantage in an anticipated relocation dispute, ‘“fundamental fairness’ requires the trial court to apply the ‘best interests of the child’ standard rather than the Baures standard.” Bisbing, supra, 445 N.J.Super. at 217 , 137 A.3d 535 (quoting Shea, supra, 384 N.J.Super. at 273-74 , 894 A.2d 711 ). *328 C. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Jaime Taormina Bisbing v. Glenn R. Bisbing, Iii
green
2 sentences2017That principle was applied by the panel in this case, which held that if a remand hearing revealed that plaintiff manipulated the parties’ negotiations to gain an advantage in an anticipated relocation dispute, ‘“fundamental fairness’ requires the trial court to apply the ‘best interests of the child’ standard rather than the Baures standard.” Bisbing, supra, 445 N.J.Super. at 217 , 137 A.3d 535 (quoting Shea, supra, 384 N.J.Super. at 273-74 , 894 A.2d 711 ). *328 C. 2017That principle was applied by the panel in this case, which held that if a remand hearing revealed that plaintiff manipulated the parties’ negotiations to gain an advantage in an anticipated relocation dispute, ‘“fundamental fairness’ requires the trial court to apply the ‘best interests of the child’ standard rather than the Baures standard.” Bisbing, supra, 445 N.J.Super. at 217 , 137 A.3d 535 (quoting Shea, supra, 384 N.J.Super. at 273-74 , 894 A.2d 711 ). *328 C. | 2 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Marshall
green
2 sentences1997We exhaustively addressed the issues raised in the remand hearing in our direct appeal opinion, Marshall I, supra, 123 N.J. at 171-207 , 586 A.2d 85 , and that discussion and analysis serves as the' foundation for our rulings on PCR issues related to the substance of the remand hearing. 1997We exhaustively addressed the issues raised in the remand hearing in our direct appeal opinion, Marshall I, supra, 123 N.J. at 171-207 , 586 A.2d 85 , and that discussion and analysis serves as the' foundation for our rulings on PCR issues related to the substance of the remand hearing. | 2 | 1991–1997 |
Nynex Mob. Comm. Co. v. Hazlet Tp.
green
2 sentences1995We further assume that a remand for a hearing on this issue is unnecessary because of plaintiffs appeal of the “planning board litigation.” Since the trial court’s decision, we decided Nynex Mobile Communications Co. v. Hazlet Township, 276 N.J.Super. 598 , 648 A.2d 724 (App.Div.1994). 1995We further assume that a remand for a hearing on this issue is unnecessary because of plaintiffs appeal of the “planning board litigation.” Since the trial court’s decision, we decided Nynex Mobile Communications Co. v. Hazlet Township, 276 N.J.Super. 598 , 648 A.2d 724 (App.Div.1994). | 2 | 1995–1995 |
State v. Doyle
green
2 sentences1990See State v. Loray, 46 N.J. 179, 186-87 , 215 A. 2d 539 (1965) (citing State v. Hutchins, 43 N.J. 85 , 202 A. 2d 678 (1964) (legality of search and seizure), Appellate Division reversed and convictions affirmed on return of remand, 44 N.J. 49 , 207 A. 2d 163 (1965); State v. Doyle, 40 N.J. 320 , 191 A. 2d 478 (1963) (legality of search and seizure), convictions affirmed on return of remand, 42 N.J. 334 , 200 A. 2d 606 (1964); State v. LaPierre, 39 N.J. 156 , 188 A. 2d 10 (voluntariness of confessions; convictions affirmed), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 852 , 83 S.Ct. 1920 , 10 L.Ed. 2d 1073 (1963); 1990See State v. Loray, 46 N.J. 179, 186-87 , 215 A. 2d 539 (1965) (citing State v. Hutchins, 43 N.J. 85 , 202 A. 2d 678 (1964) (legality of search and seizure), Appellate Division reversed and convictions affirmed on return of remand, 44 N.J. 49 , 207 A. 2d 163 (1965); State v. Doyle, 40 N.J. 320 , 191 A. 2d 478 (1963) (legality of search and seizure), convictions affirmed on return of remand, 42 N.J. 334 , 200 A. 2d 606 (1964); State v. LaPierre, 39 N.J. 156 , 188 A. 2d 10 (voluntariness of confessions; convictions affirmed), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 852 , 83 S.Ct. 1920 , 10 L.Ed. 2d 1073 (1963); | 2 | 1965–1990 |
State v. Scrotsky
green
2 sentences1990See State v. Loray, 46 N.J. 179, 186-87 , 215 A. 2d 539 (1965) (citing State v. Hutchins, 43 N.J. 85 , 202 A. 2d 678 (1964) (legality of search and seizure), Appellate Division reversed and convictions affirmed on return of remand, 44 N.J. 49 , 207 A. 2d 163 (1965); State v. Doyle, 40 N.J. 320 , 191 A. 2d 478 (1963) (legality of search and seizure), convictions affirmed on return of remand, 42 N.J. 334 , 200 A. 2d 606 (1964); State v. LaPierre, 39 N.J. 156 , 188 A. 2d 10 (voluntariness of confessions; convictions affirmed), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 852 , 83 S.Ct. 1920 , 10 L.Ed. 2d 1073 (1963); 1990See State v. Loray, 46 N.J. 179, 186-87 , 215 A. 2d 539 (1965) (citing State v. Hutchins, 43 N.J. 85 , 202 A. 2d 678 (1964) (legality of search and seizure), Appellate Division reversed and convictions affirmed on return of remand, 44 N.J. 49 , 207 A. 2d 163 (1965); State v. Doyle, 40 N.J. 320 , 191 A. 2d 478 (1963) (legality of search and seizure), convictions affirmed on return of remand, 42 N.J. 334 , 200 A. 2d 606 (1964); State v. LaPierre, 39 N.J. 156 , 188 A. 2d 10 (voluntariness of confessions; convictions affirmed), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 852 , 83 S.Ct. 1920 , 10 L.Ed. 2d 1073 (1963); | 2 | 1965–1990 |
State v. Doyle
green
2 sentences1990See State v. Loray, 46 N.J. 179, 186-87 , 215 A. 2d 539 (1965) (citing State v. Hutchins, 43 N.J. 85 , 202 A. 2d 678 (1964) (legality of search and seizure), Appellate Division reversed and convictions affirmed on return of remand, 44 N.J. 49 , 207 A. 2d 163 (1965); State v. Doyle, 40 N.J. 320 , 191 A. 2d 478 (1963) (legality of search and seizure), convictions affirmed on return of remand, 42 N.J. 334 , 200 A. 2d 606 (1964); State v. LaPierre, 39 N.J. 156 , 188 A. 2d 10 (voluntariness of confessions; convictions affirmed), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 852 , 83 S.Ct. 1920 , 10 L.Ed. 2d 1073 (1963); 1990See State v. Loray, 46 N.J. 179, 186-87 , 215 A. 2d 539 (1965) (citing State v. Hutchins, 43 N.J. 85 , 202 A. 2d 678 (1964) (legality of search and seizure), Appellate Division reversed and convictions affirmed on return of remand, 44 N.J. 49 , 207 A. 2d 163 (1965); State v. Doyle, 40 N.J. 320 , 191 A. 2d 478 (1963) (legality of search and seizure), convictions affirmed on return of remand, 42 N.J. 334 , 200 A. 2d 606 (1964); State v. LaPierre, 39 N.J. 156 , 188 A. 2d 10 (voluntariness of confessions; convictions affirmed), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 852 , 83 S.Ct. 1920 , 10 L.Ed. 2d 1073 (1963); | 2 | 1965–1990 |
State v. Scrotsky
green
2 sentences1990See State v. Loray, 46 N.J. 179, 186-87 , 215 A. 2d 539 (1965) (citing State v. Hutchins, 43 N.J. 85 , 202 A. 2d 678 (1964) (legality of search and seizure), Appellate Division reversed and convictions affirmed on return of remand, 44 N.J. 49 , 207 A. 2d 163 (1965); State v. Doyle, 40 N.J. 320 , 191 A. 2d 478 (1963) (legality of search and seizure), convictions affirmed on return of remand, 42 N.J. 334 , 200 A. 2d 606 (1964); State v. LaPierre, 39 N.J. 156 , 188 A. 2d 10 (voluntariness of confessions; convictions affirmed), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 852 , 83 S.Ct. 1920 , 10 L.Ed. 2d 1073 (1963); 1990See State v. Loray, 46 N.J. 179, 186-87 , 215 A. 2d 539 (1965) (citing State v. Hutchins, 43 N.J. 85 , 202 A. 2d 678 (1964) (legality of search and seizure), Appellate Division reversed and convictions affirmed on return of remand, 44 N.J. 49 , 207 A. 2d 163 (1965); State v. Doyle, 40 N.J. 320 , 191 A. 2d 478 (1963) (legality of search and seizure), convictions affirmed on return of remand, 42 N.J. 334 , 200 A. 2d 606 (1964); State v. LaPierre, 39 N.J. 156 , 188 A. 2d 10 (voluntariness of confessions; convictions affirmed), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 852 , 83 S.Ct. 1920 , 10 L.Ed. 2d 1073 (1963); | 2 | 1965–1990 |
State v. LaPierre
green
2 sentences1990See State v. Loray, 46 N.J. 179, 186-87 , 215 A. 2d 539 (1965) (citing State v. Hutchins, 43 N.J. 85 , 202 A. 2d 678 (1964) (legality of search and seizure), Appellate Division reversed and convictions affirmed on return of remand, 44 N.J. 49 , 207 A. 2d 163 (1965); State v. Doyle, 40 N.J. 320 , 191 A. 2d 478 (1963) (legality of search and seizure), convictions affirmed on return of remand, 42 N.J. 334 , 200 A. 2d 606 (1964); State v. LaPierre, 39 N.J. 156 , 188 A. 2d 10 (voluntariness of confessions; convictions affirmed), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 852 , 83 S.Ct. 1920 , 10 L.Ed. 2d 1073 (1963); 1990See State v. Loray, 46 N.J. 179, 186-87 , 215 A. 2d 539 (1965) (citing State v. Hutchins, 43 N.J. 85 , 202 A. 2d 678 (1964) (legality of search and seizure), Appellate Division reversed and convictions affirmed on return of remand, 44 N.J. 49 , 207 A. 2d 163 (1965); State v. Doyle, 40 N.J. 320 , 191 A. 2d 478 (1963) (legality of search and seizure), convictions affirmed on return of remand, 42 N.J. 334 , 200 A. 2d 606 (1964); State v. LaPierre, 39 N.J. 156 , 188 A. 2d 10 (voluntariness of confessions; convictions affirmed), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 852 , 83 S.Ct. 1920 , 10 L.Ed. 2d 1073 (1963); | 2 | 1965–1990 |
State v. Hess
green
1 sentence2025Defendant argues that he is entitled to a complete resentencing because the trial court did not "limit the victim impact statement to appropriate statements under State v. Tedesco, 214 N.J. [177], 196 (2013) and State v. Hess, 207 N.J. 123 (2011)." The State disagrees and maintains that the court followed the subject case law and the consent order and limited the impact of the complaining witness, doing so it "in its proper context." Although the trial judge did not address the victim impact statement orally at the conclusion of the remand hearing, the judge dedicated twelve pages of his A-104 | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Carter
green
1 sentence2021See Ways, 180 N.J. at 196-97 ; Carter, 69 N.J. at 427 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Hankins neutral | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Jacobitti v. Jacobitti green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| DCPP VS. M.M., V.B., AND E.N., IN THE MATTER OF THE GUARDIANSHIP OF K.M.N., Z.B., ZA.B., L.B., ZAR.B., AND Z.U.B. (FG-09-0206-18, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) (RECORD IMPOUNDED) (CONSOLIDATED) green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Irvington General Hsp. v. Dept. of Health green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. R.G. and J.G. (069970) green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Terrence Miller (068558) green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| In re Nagel neutral | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Kasper v. TEACHERS'PEN. & ANN. FUND green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| New Jersey Department of Children & Families v. I.S. green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Bishop green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Baylass green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Reinaldo Fuentes (070729) green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Borough of Harvey Cedars v. Karan green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Delgado green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Johnson v. California green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Watkins green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Cipala v. Lincoln Technical Institute green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| State v. Feaster green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| In Re Civil Commitment of ED green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Krol green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Carter green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Fields green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| State v. Parolin green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| State v. Johnson green | 1 | 2001–2001 |
| County of Morris v. Riverview Condominiums, Inc. green | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.