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.
9 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2019 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Teague v. Lanegreen2 sentences2011In defining whether a case announces a new rule of law, “[t]he test ... is whether ... it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the State or if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.” Cummings, supra, 184 N.J. at 97 , 875 A.2d 906 (quoting *255 Knight, supra, 145 N.J. at 250-51 , 678 A.2d 642 ) (internal quotation marks, editing marks and emphasis omitted); State v. Lark, 117 N.J. 331, 339 , 567 A.2d 197 (1989) (quoting Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 301 , 109 S.Ct. 1060, 1070 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334, 349 (1989)). 2011In defining whether a case announces a new rule of law, “[t]he test ... is whether ... it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the State or if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.” Cummings, supra, 184 N.J. at 97 , 875 A.2d 906 (quoting *255 Knight, supra, 145 N.J. at 250-51 , 678 A.2d 642 ) (internal quotation marks, editing marks and emphasis omitted); State v. Lark, 117 N.J. 331, 339 , 567 A.2d 197 (1989) (quoting Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 301 , 109 S.Ct. 1060, 1070 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334, 349 (1989)). | 5 | 6 |
State v. Knightgreen2 sentences2011In defining whether a case announces a new rule of law, “[t]he test ... is whether ... it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the State or if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.” Cummings, supra, 184 N.J. at 97 , 875 A.2d 906 (quoting *255 Knight, supra, 145 N.J. at 250-51 , 678 A.2d 642 ) (internal quotation marks, editing marks and emphasis omitted); State v. Lark, 117 N.J. 331, 339 , 567 A.2d 197 (1989) (quoting Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 301 , 109 S.Ct. 1060, 1070 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334, 349 (1989)). 2011In defining whether a case announces a new rule of law, “[t]he test ... is whether ... it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the State or if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.” Cummings, supra, 184 N.J. at 97 , 875 A.2d 906 (quoting *255 Knight, supra, 145 N.J. at 250-51 , 678 A.2d 642 ) (internal quotation marks, editing marks and emphasis omitted); State v. Lark, 117 N.J. 331, 339 , 567 A.2d 197 (1989) (quoting Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 301 , 109 S.Ct. 1060, 1070 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334, 349 (1989)). | 3 | 5 |
State v. Cummingsgreen2 sentences2011In defining whether a case announces a new rule of law, “[t]he test ... is whether ... it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the State or if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.” Cummings, supra, 184 N.J. at 97 , 875 A.2d 906 (quoting *255 Knight, supra, 145 N.J. at 250-51 , 678 A.2d 642 ) (internal quotation marks, editing marks and emphasis omitted); State v. Lark, 117 N.J. 331, 339 , 567 A.2d 197 (1989) (quoting Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 301 , 109 S.Ct. 1060, 1070 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334, 349 (1989)). 2011In defining whether a case announces a new rule of law, “[t]he test ... is whether ... it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the State or if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.” Cummings, supra, 184 N.J. at 97 , 875 A.2d 906 (quoting *255 Knight, supra, 145 N.J. at 250-51 , 678 A.2d 642 ) (internal quotation marks, editing marks and emphasis omitted); State v. Lark, 117 N.J. 331, 339 , 567 A.2d 197 (1989) (quoting Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 301 , 109 S.Ct. 1060, 1070 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334, 349 (1989)). | 2 | 4 |
State v. Larkgreen2 sentences2011In defining whether a case announces a new rule of law, “[t]he test ... is whether ... it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the State or if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.” Cummings, supra, 184 N.J. at 97 , 875 A.2d 906 (quoting *255 Knight, supra, 145 N.J. at 250-51 , 678 A.2d 642 ) (internal quotation marks, editing marks and emphasis omitted); State v. Lark, 117 N.J. 331, 339 , 567 A.2d 197 (1989) (quoting Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 301 , 109 S.Ct. 1060, 1070 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334, 349 (1989)). 2011In defining whether a case announces a new rule of law, “[t]he test ... is whether ... it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the State or if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.” Cummings, supra, 184 N.J. at 97 , 875 A.2d 906 (quoting *255 Knight, supra, 145 N.J. at 250-51 , 678 A.2d 642 ) (internal quotation marks, editing marks and emphasis omitted); State v. Lark, 117 N.J. 331, 339 , 567 A.2d 197 (1989) (quoting Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 301 , 109 S.Ct. 1060, 1070 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334, 349 (1989)). | 1 | 6 |
State v. Fealgreen2 sentences2012"A case announces a new rule of law for retroactivity purposes if there is a sudden and generally unanticipated repudiation of a long-standing practice." Id. at 308 , 944 A. 2d 599 (internal quotation omitted). 2012"A case announces a new rule of law for retroactivity purposes if there is a sudden and generally unanticipated repudiation of a long-standing practice." Id. at 308 , 944 A. 2d 599 (internal quotation omitted). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Afanadorgreen2 sentences2019A case announces a new rule of law for retroactivity purposes if there is a " 'sudden and generally unanticipated repudiation of a long-standing practice.' " State v. Purnell , 161 N.J. 44 , 53 [ 735 A.2d 513 ] (1999) (quoting State v. Afanador , 151 N.J. 41 , 58 [ 697 A.2d 529 ] (1997) ). 2019A case announces a new rule of law for retroactivity purposes if there is a " 'sudden and generally unanticipated repudiation of a long-standing practice.' " State v. Purnell , 161 N.J. 44 , 53 [ 735 A.2d 513 ] (1999) (quoting State v. Afanador , 151 N.J. 41 , 58 [ 697 A.2d 529 ] (1997) ). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Purnellgreen2 sentences2019A case announces a new rule of law for retroactivity purposes if there is a " 'sudden and generally unanticipated repudiation of a long-standing practice.' " State v. Purnell , 161 N.J. 44 , 53 [ 735 A.2d 513 ] (1999) (quoting State v. Afanador , 151 N.J. 41 , 58 [ 697 A.2d 529 ] (1997) ). 2019A case announces a new rule of law for retroactivity purposes if there is a " 'sudden and generally unanticipated repudiation of a long-standing practice.' " State v. Purnell , 161 N.J. 44 , 53 [ 735 A.2d 513 ] (1999) (quoting State v. Afanador , 151 N.J. 41 , 58 [ 697 A.2d 529 ] (1997) ). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Molinagreen2 sentences2010A. This Court has made clear that “a case announces a new rule when it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the State or if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.” State v. Molina, 187 N.J. 531, 543 , 902 A.2d 200 (2006) (quoting State v. Lark, 117 N.J. 331, 339 , 567 A.2d 197 (1989) (internal quotation marks and editing marks omitted)); accord State v. Cummings, 184 N.J. 84, 97 , 875 A.2d 906 (2005) (quoting State v. Knight, 145 N.J. 233, 250-51 , 678 A.2d 642 (1996)). 2010A. This Court has made clear that “a case announces a new rule when it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the State or if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.” State v. Molina, 187 N.J. 531, 543 , 902 A.2d 200 (2006) (quoting State v. Lark, 117 N.J. 331, 339 , 567 A.2d 197 (1989) (internal quotation marks and editing marks omitted)); accord State v. Cummings, 184 N.J. 84, 97 , 875 A.2d 906 (2005) (quoting State v. Knight, 145 N.J. 233, 250-51 , 678 A.2d 642 (1996)). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2019A new rule exists if " 'it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government ... [or] if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final.' " State v. Lark , 117 N.J. 331 , 339 [ 567 A.2d 197 ] (1989) (quoting Teague v. Lane , 489 U.S. 288 , 301 [ 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 ] (1989) ). *445 [ Feal , 194 N.J. at 308 , 944 A.2d 599 (alteration in original).] Where a new rule of law is introduced, the court has four options: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whos 2019A new rule exists if " 'it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government ... [or] if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final.' " State v. Lark , 117 N.J. 331 , 339 [ 567 A.2d 197 ] (1989) (quoting Teague v. Lane , 489 U.S. 288 , 301 [ 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 ] (1989) ). *445 [ Feal , 194 N.J. at 308 , 944 A.2d 599 (alteration in original).] Where a new rule of law is introduced, the court has four options: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whos | 1 | 2 |
| 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 sentences2019A new rule exists if " 'it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government ... [or] if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final.' " State v. Lark , 117 N.J. 331 , 339 [ 567 A.2d 197 ] (1989) (quoting Teague v. Lane , 489 U.S. 288 , 301 [ 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 ] (1989) ). *445 [ Feal , 194 N.J. at 308 , 944 A.2d 599 (alteration in original).] Where a new rule of law is introduced, the court has four options: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whos 2019A new rule exists if " 'it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government ... [or] if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final.' " State v. Lark , 117 N.J. 331 , 339 [ 567 A.2d 197 ] (1989) (quoting Teague v. Lane , 489 U.S. 288 , 301 [ 109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 ] (1989) ). *445 [ Feal , 194 N.J. at 308 , 944 A.2d 599 (alteration in original).] Where a new rule of law is introduced, the court has four options: (1) make the new rule of law purely prospective, applying it only to cases whos | 2 | 2019–2019 |
In Re Contest of November 8, 2011 General Election of Office of New Jersey General Assembly, Fourth Legislative District
green
2 sentences2012"A rule of law is new if it `breaks new ground' and is one whose `result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final.'" State v. Gaitan, 209 N.J. 339, 365 , 37 A.3d 1089 (2012) (quoting Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 301 , 109 S.Ct. 1060, 1070 , 103 L.Ed. 2d 334, 349 (1989)). 2012"A rule of law is new if it `breaks new ground' and is one whose `result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final.'" State v. Gaitan, 209 N.J. 339, 365 , 37 A.3d 1089 (2012) (quoting Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 301 , 109 S.Ct. 1060, 1070 , 103 L.Ed. 2d 334, 349 (1989)). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
State v. Widmaier
green
2 sentences2011Widmaier, supra, 157 N.J. at 497-98 , 724 A. 2d 241 . 2011Widmaier, supra, 157 N.J. at 497-98 , 724 A. 2d 241 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Colbert
green
2 sentences2008State v. Colbert, 190 N.J. 14, 22 , 918 A.2d 14 (2007); see also State v. Molina, 187 N.J. 531, 542-43 , 902 A.2d 200 (2006); State v. Cummings, 184 N.J. 84, 96-97 , 875 A.2d 906 (2005). *308 A case announces a new rule of law for retroactivity purposes if there is a “ ‘sudden and generally unanticipated repudiation of a long-standing practice.’ ” State v. Purnell, 161 N.J. 44, 53 , 735 A.2d 513 (1999) (quoting State v. Afanador, 151 N.J. 41, 58 , 697 A.2d 529 (1997)). 2008State v. Colbert, 190 N.J. 14, 22 , 918 A.2d 14 (2007); see also State v. Molina, 187 N.J. 531, 542-43 , 902 A.2d 200 (2006); State v. Cummings, 184 N.J. 84, 96-97 , 875 A.2d 906 (2005). *308 A case announces a new rule of law for retroactivity purposes if there is a “ ‘sudden and generally unanticipated repudiation of a long-standing practice.’ ” State v. Purnell, 161 N.J. 44, 53 , 735 A.2d 513 (1999) (quoting State v. Afanador, 151 N.J. 41, 58 , 697 A.2d 529 (1997)). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.