9 New Jersey opinions name it 1 courts 2003–2024 5 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 |
|---|---|---|
Geler v. Akawiegreen2 sentences2024The excesses were invocations of the golden rule that counsel made "incessantly . . . through page after page of the transcript" of his summation, along with arguments about harms for which damages were not being claimed, misstatements of "material elements of the evidence," emotionally charged appeals to sympathy, and numerous "derisive and derogatory comments" about the "defendants, their counsel, their witnesses and their evidence in general." Id. at 465-68 . 2021The golden rule is based on the principle that "you should do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you." Geler v. Akawie, 358 N.J. | 4 | 6 |
Botta v. Brunnergreen1 sentence2024See Cox, 83 N.J. at 384 (citing Botta, 26 N.J. at 94 ). | 1 | 1 |
Cox v. Valley Fair Corp.green2 sentences2024In Cox v. Valley Fair Corp., 83 N.J. 381, 385-86 (1980), the Court criticized a summation for having "a subtle appeal to the 'golden rule,'" but it reversed only for the summation's "suggestion of a per diem formula" in violation of "the Botta v. Brunner rule." Ibid. 2024In Cox v. Valley Fair Corp., 83 N.J. 381, 385-86 (1980), the Court criticized a summation for having "a subtle appeal to the 'golden rule,'" but it reversed only for the summation's "suggestion of a per diem formula" in violation of "the Botta v. Brunner rule." Ibid. | 1 | 1 |
Hayling v. Haylinggreen1 sentence2021Plaintiff urges us not to consider defendant's two latter issues, claiming RGF's "failure to disclose that two out of three issues were not raised below" constitutes a violation of Rule 2:6-2(a)(6).4 4 Rule 2:6-2(a)(6) states in relevant part: A-3157-19 12 As a threshold matter, we note that the purpose of an appellate brief is to provide the court "an orderly and considered presentation of the matter on appeal so that the court 'may have before it such parts of the record and such legal authorities as will be of help in arriving at a proper determination.'" Hayling v. Hayling, 197 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Irvinggreen1 sentence2021Cf., State v. Irving, 114 N.J. 427, 444 (1989) ("[D]efense counsel's failure to A-1106-19 14 make an objection at trial creates an inference that he [or she] did not find the prosecutor's remarks prejudicial.") (citing State v. Johnson, 31 N.J. 489, 511 (1960)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2021Cf., State v. Irving, 114 N.J. 427, 444 (1989) ("[D]efense counsel's failure to A-1106-19 14 make an objection at trial creates an inference that he [or she] did not find the prosecutor's remarks prejudicial.") (citing State v. Johnson, 31 N.J. 489, 511 (1960)). | 1 | 1 |
Henker v. Preybylowskigreen2 sentences2018The golden rule essentially "ask[s] jurors to award damages in the amount that they would want for their own pain and suffering," and its use by a plaintiff's attorney "is still prohibited." Henker v. Preybylowski, 216 N.J. 2018The golden rule essentially "ask[s] jurors to award damages in the amount that they would want for their own pain and suffering," and its use by a plaintiff's attorney "is still prohibited." Henker v. Preybylowski, 216 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Bender v. Adelsongreen1 sentence2018See Bender, 187 N.J. at 433 . 17 A-2380-15T1 The golden rule is based on the principle that "you should do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you." Geler v. Akawie, 358 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Diakamopoulos v. Monmouth Med. Cen.green1 sentence2018Ctr., 312 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
cluster 405350green1 sentence2003In the present case, it is not only that the golden rule was impermissibly invoked, but also the "jolting proximity" ( Arnold v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 681 F. 2d 186, 195 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1102 , 103 S.Ct. 1801 , 76 L.Ed. 2d 366 (1983)) of the invocations that cause us grave concern. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. Scaccetti
green
2 sentences2009This appeal followed. "[A] civil plaintiff has a constitutional right to have a jury decide the merits and worth of her case." Johnson v. Scaccetti, 192 N.J. 256, 279 , 927 A. 2d 1269 (2007). 2009This appeal followed. "[A] civil plaintiff has a constitutional right to have a jury decide the merits and worth of her case." Johnson v. Scaccetti, 192 N.J. 256, 279 , 927 A. 2d 1269 (2007). | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Spencer v. Israel, Warden
green
1 sentence2003In the present case, it is not only that the golden rule was impermissibly invoked, but also the "jolting proximity" ( Arnold v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 681 F. 2d 186, 195 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1102 , 103 S.Ct. 1801 , 76 L.Ed. 2d 366 (1983)) of the invocations that cause us grave concern. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Unger v. Consolidated Foods Corp.
green
1 sentence2003In the present case, it is not only that the golden rule was impermissibly invoked, but also the "jolting proximity" ( Arnold v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 681 F. 2d 186, 195 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1102 , 103 S.Ct. 1801 , 76 L.Ed. 2d 366 (1983)) of the invocations that cause us grave concern. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. United States
green
1 sentence2003In the present case, it is not only that the golden rule was impermissibly invoked, but also the "jolting proximity" ( Arnold v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 681 F. 2d 186, 195 (4th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1102 , 103 S.Ct. 1801 , 76 L.Ed. 2d 366 (1983)) of the invocations that cause us grave concern. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
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.