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.
11 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 2006–2026 6 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. Nashgreen2 sentences2026Although the petitioner does “not have to prove that the issue of concern cost him the case,” Mitchell, 126 N.J. at 587 , “[t]o succeed on a fundamental-injustice claim, the petitioner must make ‘some showing’ that an error or violation ‘played a role in the determination of guilt,’” Nash, 212 N.J. at 547 (quoting Mitchell, 126 N.J. at 587 ). 2025"To succeed on a fundamental-injustice claim," the PCR petitioner "must make '"some showing"' that an error or violation '"played a role in the determination of guilt."'" State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518, 547 (2013) (quoting State v. Marshall, 173 N.J. 343, 354 (2002)). | 3 | 4 |
State v. Marshallgreen2 sentences2025"To succeed on a fundamental-injustice claim," the PCR petitioner "must make '"some showing"' that an error or violation '"played a role in the determination of guilt."'" State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518, 547 (2013) (quoting State v. Marshall, 173 N.J. 343, 354 (2002)). 2024The Court acknowledged there is no bright-line test to determine when a PCR court should apply the fundamental-injustice exception but noted that it had previously declared that "[i]n defining fundamental injustice, the courts will look to whether the judicial system has provided the defendant with fair proceedings leading to a just outcome. 'Fundamental injustice' will be found if the prosecution or the judiciary abused the process under which the defendant was convicted . . . ." Ibid. (quoting Mitchell, 126 N.J. at 587 ). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Preciosegreen2 sentences2024In State v. Martini, the Court provided further instruction on the fundamental injustice exception, noting "[o]ur procedural rules seek to achieve 'the important state goals of finality and judicial economy.'" 187 N.J. 469, 481 (2006) (quoting State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 474 (1992)). 2024In State v. Martini, the Court provided further instruction on the fundamental injustice exception, noting "[o]ur procedural rules seek to achieve 'the important state goals of finality and judicial economy.'" 187 N.J. 469, 481 (2006) (quoting State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 474 (1992)). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2026The Appellate Division acknowledged this in rejecting defendant’s due process argument, stating that “‘a defendant has no legal entitlement to compel a plea offer or a plea bargain’ because ‘the decision whether to engage in such bargaining rests with the prosecutor.’” Wildgoose, 479 N.J. Super. at 349 (quoting State v. Williams, 277 N.J. Super. 40, 46 (App. Div. 1994)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Martinigreen2 sentences2024In State v. Martini, the Court provided further instruction on the fundamental injustice exception, noting "[o]ur procedural rules seek to achieve 'the important state goals of finality and judicial economy.'" 187 N.J. 469, 481 (2006) (quoting State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 474 (1992)). 2024In State v. Martini, the Court provided further instruction on the fundamental injustice exception, noting "[o]ur procedural rules seek to achieve 'the important state goals of finality and judicial economy.'" 187 N.J. 469, 481 (2006) (quoting State v. Preciose, 129 N.J. 451, 474 (1992)). | 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. Mitchell
green
2 sentences2026"To succeed on a fundamental-injustice claim, the petitioner must make 'some showing' that an error or violation 'played a role in the determination of guilt.'" Ibid. (quoting Mitchell, 126 N.J. at 587 ). 2026"To succeed on a fundamental-injustice claim, the petitioner must make 'some showing' that an error or violation 'played a role in the determination of guilt.'" Ibid. (quoting Mitchell, 126 N.J. at 587 ). | 7 | 2006–2026 |
State v. Laurick
red
1 sentence2013To succeed on a fundamental-injustice claim, the petitioner must make “ ‘some showing’ ” that an error or violation “ ‘played a role in the determination of guilt.’ ” Ibid, (quoting Laurick, supra, 120 N.J. at 13 , 575 A..2d 1340). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
State v. Franklin
green
2 sentences2013Moreover, Rule 3:22-5’s bar to review of a prior claim litigated on the merits “is not an inflexible command.” State v. Franklin, 184 N.J. 516, 528 , 878 A.2d 757 (2005). 2013Moreover, Rule 3:22-5’s bar to review of a prior claim litigated on the merits “is not an inflexible command.” State v. Franklin, 184 N.J. 516, 528 , 878 A.2d 757 (2005). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
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.