408 New Jersey opinions name it 3 courts 1958–2026 196 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. Harrisgreen2 sentences2026Additionally, we apply "a de novo standard of review when a PCR court does not conduct an evidentiary hearing." Ibid. (citing State v. Blake, 444 N.J. 2025Accordingly, we conclude the PCR court "considered all of the arguments made by [defendant]." However, for completeness, in reviewing the claims defendant contends were overlooked under the de novo standard of review, Harris, 181 N.J. at 419-20 , we regard any remaining arguments to be "without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion." R. 2:11- 3(e)(2). | 27 | 86 |
Bruce Kaye v. Alan P. Rosefielde (073353)green2 sentences2026Meade v. Twp. of Livingston, 249 N.J. 310 , 326-27 (2021); Kaye v. Rosefielde, 223 N.J. 218, 229 (2015). 2025Meade v. Township of Livingston, 249 N.J. 310 , 326-27 (2021); Kaye v. Rosefielde, 223 N.J. 218, 229 (2015). | 18 | 18 |
State v. Kelvin Williams (071306)green2 sentences2026See also State v. Williams, 218 N.J. 576, 593-94 (2014) ("In assessing the sufficiency of the evidence on an acquittal motion, we apply a de novo standard of review"). 2025Super. 154, 159 (App. Div. 2006)). "[W]e apply a de novo standard of review," State v. Williams, 218 N.J. 576, 594 (2014), and "owe no deference to the findings of . . . the trial court." State v. Lodzinski, 249 N.J. 116 , 145 (2021). | 16 | 23 |
State of New Jersey v. Horace Blakegreen2 sentences2026Additionally, we apply "a de novo standard of review when a PCR court does not conduct an evidentiary hearing." Ibid. (citing State v. Blake, 444 N.J. 2025State v. Blake, 444 N.J. | 16 | 16 |
Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. County of Bergengreen2 sentences2026See Stop & Shop Supermarket Co. v. Cnty. of Bergen, 450 N.J. 2026See Stop & Shop Supermarkets Co. v. Cnty. of Bergen, 450 N.J. | 15 | 15 |
Wayne Davis v. Brickman Landscaping (071310)green2 sentences2019Comm., 140 N.J. 366, 378 (1995), and we "do not defer to the trial court's . . . interpretation of 'the meaning of a statute[.]'" Davis, 219 N.J. at 405 (quoting Nicholas v. Mynster, 213 N.J. 463, 478 (2013)). 2019Davis v. Brickman Landscaping, Ltd., 219 N.J. 395, 405 (2014). | 10 | 11 |
Ruddick v. United States District Court for the Middle District of Floridagreen2 sentences2017See State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 420-21 (2004), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1145 , 125 S. Ct. 2973 , 162 L. 2017See State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 420-21 (2004), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1145 , 125 S. Ct. 2973 , 162 L. | 9 | 10 |
Muldrow v. Conwaygreen2 sentences2017See State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 420-21 (2004), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1145 , 125 S. Ct. 2973 , 162 L. 2017See State v. Harris, 181 N.J. 391, 420-21 (2004), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1145 , 125 S. Ct. 2973 , 162 L. | 9 | 10 |
Patricia Atalese v. U.S. Legal Services Group, L.P. (072314)green2 sentences2026"Our approach in construing an arbitration provision of a contract is governed by the same de novo standard of review." Atalese, 219 N.J. at 446 . 2025Grp., L.P., 219 N.J. 430, 446 (2014). | 6 | 8 |
Romanowski v. Brick Tp.green2 sentences2022A de novo hearing provides the "reviewing court with the opportunity to consider the matter anew, afresh [and] for a second time." Phillips, 117 N.J. at 578 (second alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Romanowski v. Brick Twp., 185 N.J. 2018A de novo hearing provides a reviewing court with the opportunity to consider the matter "anew, afresh [and] for a second time." Romanowski v. Brick Township, 185 N.J. | 5 | 9 |
Janell Goffe v. Foulke Management Corp Sasha Robinson and Tijuana Johnson v. Mall Chevrolet (081258) (Camden County and Statewide)green2 sentences2025Corp., 238 N.J. 191, 207 (2019). 2021Corp., 238 N.J. 191, 207 (2019) (citing Hirsch v. Amper Fin. | 5 | 5 |
State v. Oliverigreen2 sentences2019In an appeal from a de novo hearing on the record, we "consider only the action of the Law Division and not that of the municipal court." State v. Oliveri, 336 N.J. 2019In an appeal from a de novo hearing on the record, we "consider only the action of the Law Division and not that of the municipal court." State v. Oliveri, 336 N.J. | 5 | 5 |
Manalapan Realty v. Township Committee of the Township of Manalapangreen2 sentences2016Comm., 140 N.J. 366, 378 , 658 A.2d 1230 (1995); see also State v. Drury, 190 N.J. 197, 209 , 919 A.2d 813 (2007) (defining the de novo standard of review). 2016Comm., 140 N.J. 366, 378 , 658 A.2d 1230 (1995); see also State v. Drury, 190 N.J. 197, 209 , 919 A.2d 813 (2007) (defining the de novo standard of review). | 4 | 28 |
Town of West New York v. Bockgreen2 sentences1999The Sheriff argues also that "it was error to prohibit the appointing authority from proceeding on the five original charges below in the preliminary notice of disciplinary action in this de novo hearing and review before the Merit System Board." This argument is premised upon the de novo nature of the hearing before the Board, East Paterson v. Civil Service Dept., 47 N.J.Super. 55, 64 , 135 A. 2d 213 (App.Div.1957); see also In re Morrison, 216 N.J.Super. 143, 151 , 523 A. 2d 238 (App.Div.1987); Grasso v. Borough Council of Glassboro, 205 N.J.Super. 18, 25 , 500 A. 2d 10 (App.Div.1985), certi 1999The Sheriff argues also that "it was error to prohibit the appointing authority from proceeding on the five original charges below in the preliminary notice of disciplinary action in this de novo hearing and review before the Merit System Board." This argument is premised upon the de novo nature of the hearing before the Board, East Paterson v. Civil Service Dept., 47 N.J.Super. 55, 64 , 135 A. 2d 213 (App.Div.1957); see also In re Morrison, 216 N.J.Super. 143, 151 , 523 A. 2d 238 (App.Div.1987); Grasso v. Borough Council of Glassboro, 205 N.J.Super. 18, 25 , 500 A. 2d 10 (App.Div.1985), certi | 4 | 7 |
Thomas McCandless v. Donald T. Vaughn the Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania District Attorney for Philadelphia Countygreen2 sentences2025Ibid. (citing McCandless v. Vaughn, 172 F.3d 255 , A-3007-22 7 265 (3d Cir. 1999)). 2024Ibid. (citing McCandless v. Vaughn, 172 F.3d 255, 265 (3d Cir. 1999)). | 4 | 5 |
Dimitrakopoulos v. Borrus, Goldin, Foley, Vignuolo, Hyman & Stahl, P.C.green2 sentences2023Dimitrakopoulos v. Borrus, Goldin, Foley, Vignuolo, Hyman and Stahl, P.C., 237 N.J. 91, 108 (2019). 2022Dimitrakopoulos v. Borrus, Goldin, Foley, Vignuolo, Hyman & Stahl, P.C., 237 N.J. 91, 108 (2019) (citing Stop & Shop Supermarket Co., LLC v. Cnty. of Bergen, 450 N.J. | 4 | 4 |
State v. MINITEEgreen2 sentences2020"Both the United States Constitution and the New Jersey Constitution guarantee an individual's right to be secure against unreasonable searches or seizures." State v. Minitee, 210 N.J. 307, 318 (2012) (citing U.S. Const. amend. 2020"Both the United States Constitution and the New Jersey Constitution guarantee an individual's right to be secure against unreasonable searches or seizures." State A-2500-18T1 11 v. Minitee, 210 N.J. 307, 318 (2012) (citing U.S. Const. amend. | 4 | 4 |
State v. Dion E. Robinson (076267) (Atlantic County and Statewide)green2 sentences2020Applying the de novo standard of review to the motion judge's legal conclusions, "[w]e review this appeal in accordance with familiar principles of constitutional law." State v. Robinson, 228 N.J. 529, 543 (2017). 2020Applying the de novo standard of review to the motion judge's legal conclusions, "[w]e review this appeal in accordance with familiar principles of constitutional law." State v. Robinson, 228 N.J. 529, 543 (2017). | 4 | 4 |
State in the Interest of K.O., a Minor (070406)green2 sentences2017Accordingly, a de novo standard of review applies on appeal.” State in Interest of K.O., 217 N.J. 83, 91 , 85 A.3d 938 (2014) (citing McGovern v. Rutgers, 211 N.J. 94, 107-08 , 47 A.3d 724 (2012); State v. Gandhi, 201 N.J. 161, 176 , 989 A.2d 256 (2010)). 2017Accordingly, a de novo standard of review applies on appeal.” State in Interest of K.O., 217 N.J. 83, 91 , 85 A.3d 938 (2014) (citing McGovern v. Rutgers, 211 N.J. 94, 107-08 , 47 A.3d 724 (2012); State v. Gandhi, 201 N.J. 161, 176 , 989 A.2d 256 (2010)). | 3 | 4 |
State of New Jersey v. Antwain T. Watersgreen2 sentences2024State v. Waters, 439 N.J. 2022State v. Waters, 439 N.J. | 3 | 4 |
Reese v. Weisgreen2 sentences2025Reese v. Weis, 430 N.J. 2022Rowe v. Bell & Gossett Co., 239 N.J. 531 , 552 (2019); Reese v. Weis, 430 N.J. | 3 | 3 |
| State v. Preciosegreen | 3 | 3 |
| State of New Jersey v. Kashif K. Pattersongreen | 3 | 3 |
| cluster 790410green | 3 | 3 |
| McDade v. Siazongreen | 3 | 3 |
| Ensslin v. Township of North Bergengreen | 3 | 3 |
New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. I.S.green2 sentences2025Id. at 245-46 . 2024Id. at 245-46 (citation omitted). | 2 | 8 |
State v. Reyesgreen2 sentences2025"We must determine whether, based on the entirety of the evidence and after giving the State the benefit of all its favorable testimony and all the favorable inferences drawn from that testimony, a reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Williams, 218 N.J. at 594 (citing Reyes, 50 N.J. at 458-59 ). 2021Super. 530, 549 (App. Div. 2011) (applying the same de novo standard of review to motions to dismiss under Rule 3:18-1 and Rule 3:18-2 to determine if there was sufficient evidence "such that a jury could properly find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the crime charged" (quoting State v. D.A., 191 N.J. 158, 163 (2007))); see also State v. Reyes, 50 N.J. 454, 458-59 (1967). | 2 | 5 |
State v. Terrell Hubbard (073539)green2 sentences2025Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting State v. Hubbard, 222 N.J. 249, 263 (2015)). 2025Ibid. (quoting State v. Hubbard, 222 N.J. 249, 263 (2015)). | 2 | 5 |
| State v. John Tate (072754)green | 2 | 3 |
| In Re Disciplinary Procedures of Phillipsgreen | 2 | 3 |
| State v. Shaquille A. Nance State v. Taja L. Willis Bolton State v. Alvin D. Williams(076626)green | 2 | 3 |
| State v. Diaz-Bridgesgreen | 2 | 3 |
| State of New Jersey v. Alice O'Donnellgreen | 2 | 2 |
| Globe Motor Company v. Ilya Igdalev(074996)green | 2 | 2 |
| Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Electronics Corp.green | 2 | 2 |
| In Re Snellbakergreen | 2 | 2 |
| International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 68 Welfare Fund v. Merck & Co.green | 2 | 2 |
| State v. Sailorgreen | 2 | 2 |
Brill v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of Americagreen2 sentences2026Co. of America, 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995) (holding that the key inquiry on a motion for summary judgment is whether the evidence presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non -moving party, "[is] sufficient to permit a rational factfinder to resolve the al leged disputed issue in favor of the non-moving party."). 2016Brill, supra, 142 N.J. at 540 . | 1 | 5 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Romanowski v. Brick Tp.
green
2 sentences2015A de novo hearing offers the reviewing court the opportunity to consider the matter “anew, afresh [and] for a second time.” Romanowski v. Township of Brick, 185 N.J.Super. 197, 204 , 447 A.2d 1352 (Law Div.1982), aff'd o.b., 192 N.J.Super. 79 , 469 A.2d 85 (App.Div.1983). 2006“A de novo hearing provides a reviewing court with the opportunity to consider the matter ‘anew, afresh [and] for a second time.’ ” In re Phillips, 117 N.J. 567, 578 , 569 A.2d 807 (1990) (quoting Romanowski v. Brick Twp., 185 N.J.Super. 197, 204 , 447 A.2d 1352 (Law Div.1982), aff'd o.b., 192 N.J.Super. 79 , 469 A.2d 85 (App.Div.1983)). | 7 | 1990–2018 |
Weston v. State
green
2 sentences2022The Court in Weston, however, explained that a de novo hearing "contemplates introduction of relevant and material testimony and the application of an independent judgment to the testimony by the reviewing court." 60 N.J. at 45 . 2022Thus, a de novo hearing "compensates constitutionally for procedural deficiencies before the administrative official." Ibid. (citing Jennings v. Mahoney, 404 U.S. 25 (1971)). | 6 | 2018–2022 |
Hakeem v. Beyer
green
2 sentences2020Ibid. 2020Ibid. | 4 | 2020–2020 |
Rte. 73 Bowling Center, Inc. v. Aristone
green
2 sentences2015A de novo hearing offers the reviewing court the opportunity to consider the matter “anew, afresh [and] for a second time.” Romanowski v. Township of Brick, 185 N.J.Super. 197, 204 , 447 A.2d 1352 (Law Div.1982), aff'd o.b., 192 N.J.Super. 79 , 469 A.2d 85 (App.Div.1983). 2006“A de novo hearing provides a reviewing court with the opportunity to consider the matter ‘anew, afresh [and] for a second time.’ ” In re Phillips, 117 N.J. 567, 578 , 569 A.2d 807 (1990) (quoting Romanowski v. Brick Twp., 185 N.J.Super. 197, 204 , 447 A.2d 1352 (Law Div.1982), aff'd o.b., 192 N.J.Super. 79 , 469 A.2d 85 (App.Div.1983)). | 4 | 1992–2015 |
| Grasso v. Borough Council of Bor. of Glassboro green | 3 | 1999–2021 |
| New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services v. R.G. and J.G. (069970) green | 3 | 2019–2020 |
| Russo v. BD. OF TRUSTEES, POLICE. green | 2 | 2024–2025 |
| Saint Peter's University Hospital v. Lacy green | 2 | 2021–2025 |
| State v. Kevin Gamble (071234) green | 2 | 2025–2025 |
| Henry v. Rahway State Prison green | 2 | 1999–2024 |
| Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Insurance Co. of America green | 2 | 2024–2024 |
| Lorraine Gormley v. Latanya Wood-El (069717) green | 2 | 2022–2022 |
| Michael E. Hirsch v. Amper Financial Services, LLC (070751) green | 2 | 2014–2021 |
| State of New Jersey v. Gregory Maurer green | 2 | 2019–2021 |
| Strickland v. Washington green | 2 | 2019–2019 |
| Grasso v. BOROUGH COUNCIL, BOROUGH OF GLASSBORO green | 2 | 1999–2000 |
| State v. Locurto green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| In Re the Guardianship of J.N.H. green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Lopez v. Swyer green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
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.