Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2024 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. Hendersongreen1 sentence2019If the weight of these factors warrants the retroactive application of a new rule, we can apply it in one of four ways: "(1) purely prospectively . . . to cases in which the operative facts arise after the new rule has been announced; (2) in future cases and in the case in which the rule is announced, but not in any other litigation that is pending or has reached final judgment at the time the new rule is set forth; (3) pipeline retroactivity, rendering it applicable in all future cases, the case in which the rule is announced, and any cases still on direct appeal; and (4) complete retroactive | 1 | 1 |
Linkletter v. Walkerred2 sentences1979See, e. g., Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618 , 85 S. Ct. 1731 , 14 L. 1979See, e. g., Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618 , 85 S. Ct. 1731 , 14 L. | 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. Burstein
green
2 sentences2011Id. at 403 [ 427 A. 2d 525 ]. 2011Id. at 403 [ 427 A.2d 525 ], A third option is to give the new rule “pipeline retroactivity,” rendering it applicable in all future cases, the case in which the rule is announced, and any cases still on direct appeal. | 5 | 1996–2011 |
State v. Knight
green
2 sentences2019If the weight of these factors warrants the retroactive application of a new rule, we can apply it in one of four ways: "(1) purely prospectively . . . to cases in which the operative facts arise after the new rule has been announced; (2) in future cases and in the case in which the rule is announced, but not in any other litigation that is pending or has reached final judgment at the time the new rule is set forth; (3) pipeline retroactivity, rendering it applicable in all future cases, the case in which the rule is announced, and any cases still on direct appeal; and (4) complete retroactive 2011The Court can apply a new rule in one of four ways: (1) “purely prospectively ... to cases in whieh the operative facts arise after the new rule has been announced”; (2) “in future cases and in the case in which the rule is announced, but not in any other litigation that is pending or has reached final judgment at the time the new rule is set forth”; (3) “ ‘pipeline retroactivity,’ rendering it applicable in all future cases, the case in which the rule is announced, and any cases still on direct appeal”; and (4) “complete retroactive effect ... to all cases.” Knight, supra, 145 N.J. at 249 , 6 | 3 | 2011–2019 |
State v. Cummings
green
2 sentences2024Ibid. (quoting Cummings, 184 N.J. at 98 ). 2024Ibid. (quoting Cummings, 184 N.J. at 98 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Nash
green
1 sentence1979See, e.g., Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618 , 85 S.Ct. 1731 , 14 L.Ed. 2d 601 (1965) (application of "exclusionary rule" to the states); State v. Nash, 64 N.J. 464 (1974) (prohibition against imposition of more severe sentence following appeal). | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.