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 1950–2025 2 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. Widmaiergreen1 sentence2025A-2630-23 10 The Legislature authorized the standard statement as a procedural device to inform motorists of "the mandatory nature of the [breath] test, their limited rights to counsel for purposes of the test, and the need for unequivocal, affirmative consent." State v. Widmaier, 157 N.J. 475, 489 (1999); see also N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2(d) (providing "[t]he police officer shall inform the person tested of [their] rights," namely, the rights to elect who draws the sample and to be provided a copy of test results upon request). | 1 | 1 |
State v. DeLucagreen1 sentence2024A-3705-23 3 v. DeLuca, 108 N.J. 98, 111 (1987). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Marquezgreen2 sentences2015Schmidt, supra, 206 N.J. at 75, 82; accord O'Driscoll, supra, 215 N.J. at 467; Marquez, supra, 202 N.J. at 492, 500 . 2015Schmidt, supra, 206 N.J. at 75, 82; accord O'Driscoll, supra, 215 N.J. at 467; Marquez, supra, 202 N.J. at 492, 500 . | 1 | 1 |
Morrissey v. Brewergreen2 sentences1974Appellant was not provided a prompt preliminary (probable cause) hearing "at or reasonably near the place of the alleged parole violation or arrest" in accord with the due process requirements set forth in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 485 , 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2602 , 33 L.Ed. 2d 484, 496 (1972). 1974Appellant was not provided a prompt preliminary (probable cause) hearing "at or reasonably near the place of the alleged parole violation or arrest" in accord with the due process requirements set forth in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 485 , 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2602 , 33 L.Ed. 2d 484, 496 (1972). | 1 | 1 |
State ex rel. Werts v. Rogersgreen1 sentence1950Such rule was applied in State v. Rogers, 56 N.J.L. 480, p. 621 ( Sup. Ct. 1894), by Chief Justice Beasley in construing Article IV, Section 2, paragraph 1, Constitution (1844), which was and is a copy of a clause of the same import in the Constitution of the United States. | 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. Greeley
green
2 sentences2006N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2 does not address any "affirmative duties on the part of the police," other than "the need to inform an arrestee of the right to a copy of the test results[,] [Subsection (b),] and that he or she is permitted to have an independent test performed[,] [Subsections (c) and (d)]." State v. Greeley, 178 N.J. 38, 43 , 834 A. 2d 1016 (2003). 2006N.J.S.A. 39:4-50.2 does not address any "affirmative duties on the part of the police," other than "the need to inform an arrestee of the right to a copy of the test results[,] [Subsection (b),] and that he or she is permitted to have an independent test performed[,] [Subsections (c) and (d)]." State v. Greeley, 178 N.J. 38, 43 , 834 A. 2d 1016 (2003). | 2 | 2006–2009 |
State v. Chun
green
1 sentence2012Ibid. | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Department of Corrections v. McNeil
green
1 sentence1988Requests 1, 2, and 6 were received by plaintiff and Request 9 was withdrawn by plaintiff. [4] In McNeil, we concluded that the correct result was "to indicate a time beyond which the disciplinary standards cannot be enforced unless adopted in accordance with the APA, a result that would be nothing more than applying a decision prospectively, an ordinary judicial vehicle." 209 N.J. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.