10 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1967–2025 1 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. Trugliagreen2 sentences1989Under the more flexible Davis analysis, however, the focus is "on the episodic fragments of the events." Ibid. 1985The Davis test, where the analysis focuses "on the episodic fragments of the events," Truglia, 97 N.J. at 521 , should be used to address the merger question raised on this appeal. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Loponiogreen1 sentence1989Cf. State v. Tapia, supra, 113 N.J.Super. 322 (statements made by defendant under mistaken belief investigator was agent of own attorney held to be privileged as an attorney-client communication); State v. Loponio, supra, 85 N.J.L. at 363 (letter written by third party for inmate who seeks to retain counsel held protected by attorney-client privilege). | 1 | 1 |
MOTYKA v. McCORKLEgreen1 sentence1976The regulation is entitled to the "customary rebuttable presumption of validity and regularity afforded to administrative regulations generally." Motyka v. McCorkle, et al., 58 N.J. 165, 181 (1971). | 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. Davis
green
2 sentences2025The Davis instruction stated, in pertinent part: "You must determine . . . not only whether the State has proved each and every element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, but also whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is the person who committed it." Davis, 363 N.J. 2025The Davis instruction stated, in pertinent part: "You must determine . . . not only whether the State has proved each and every element of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, but also whether the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant is the person who committed it." Davis, 363 N.J. | 2 | 2005–2025 |
State Ex Rel. Jg
green
2 sentences1999In applying the Davis factors, the court found the third factor was lacking, reasoning that the question put to the defendant was "unduly authoritative, indicative of a criminal suspicion." Id. at 31, 726 A. 2d 948 . 1999In applying the Davis factors, the court found the third factor was lacking, reasoning that the question put to the defendant was "unduly authoritative, indicative of a criminal suspicion." Id. at 31, 726 A. 2d 948 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Davis
green
2 sentences1996In Davis , the Court observed: *638 Such an approach would entail analysis of the evidence in terms of, among other things, the time and place of each purported violation; whether the proof submitted as to one count of the indictment would be a necessary ingredient to a conviction under another count; whether one act was an integral part of a larger scheme or episode; the intent of the accused; and the consequences of the criminal standards transgressed. [State v. Davis, supra, 68 N.J. at 81 , 342 A.2d 841 .] The Appellate Division applied the Davis test in the present case and concluded that 1996In Davis , the Court observed: *638 Such an approach would entail analysis of the evidence in terms of, among other things, the time and place of each purported violation; whether the proof submitted as to one count of the indictment would be a necessary ingredient to a conviction under another count; whether one act was an integral part of a larger scheme or episode; the intent of the accused; and the consequences of the criminal standards transgressed. [State v. Davis, supra, 68 N.J. at 81 , 342 A.2d 841 .] The Appellate Division applied the Davis test in the present case and concluded that | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Blockburger v. United States
green
2 sentences1989Merger questions are now analyzed under one of two tests: the Blockburger test ( Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932)), and the Davis test. 1989Merger questions are now analyzed under one of two tests: the Blockburger test ( Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932)), and the Davis test. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
State v. Tapia
green
2 sentences1989Cf. State v. Tapia, supra, 113 N.J. 1989Cf. State v. Tapia, supra, 113 N.J. | 1 | 1989–1989 |
State v. Davis
neutral
1 sentence1986Pursuant to Rule 2:2-2(b), we granted the State leave to appeal the interlocutory order, 102 N.J. 401 , (1986), and now reverse the order suppressing the evidence. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Wheeler v. Reid
green
1 sentence1967This decision was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court per curiam sub nomine Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Moores, 335 U. S. 874 , 69 S. Ct. 239 , 93 L. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
Transcontinental & Western Air, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board
green
1 sentence1967This decision was affirmed by the United States Supreme Court per curiam sub nomine Bethlehem Steel Co. v. Moores, 335 U. S. 874 , 69 S. Ct. 239 , 93 L. | 1 | 1967–1967 |
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.