James test in New Jersey

2021Matter of D.C., 146 N.J. 31 , 51 (1996).

2021Matter of D.C., 146 N.J. 31 , 51 (1996).

2018Citing Bentley v. Long Dock Company, 14 N.J.

2016Were we to disagree with Judge Blee's findings and consider the extraordinary action urged by the State — waiving J.F. based on our review of the record without a remand — we would be constrained to "apply the statute in effect at the time of [our] decision" in accordance with the "current policy declared by the legislative body." Bey, supra, 112 N.J. at 103 (quoting Kruvant, supra, 82 N.J. at 440 ).

2016Were we to disagree with Judge Blee's findings and consider the extraordinary action urged by the State — waiving J.F. based on our review of the record without a remand — we would be constrained to "apply the statute in effect at the time of [our] decision" in accordance with the "current policy declared by the legislative body." Bey, supra, 112 N.J. at 103 (quoting Kruvant, supra, 82 N.J. at 440 ).

2016Were we to disagree with Judge Blee's findings and consider the extraordinary action urged by the State — waiving J.F. based on our review of the record without a remand — we would be constrained to "apply the statute in effect at the time of [our] decision" in accordance with the "current policy declared by the legislative body." Bey, supra, 112 N.J. at 103 (quoting Kruvant, supra, 82 N.J. at 440 ).

2016Were we to disagree with Judge Blee's findings and consider the extraordinary action urged by the State — waiving J.F. based on our review of the record without a remand — we would be constrained to "apply the statute in effect at the time of [our] decision" in accordance with the "current policy declared by the legislative body." Bey, supra, 112 N.J. at 103 (quoting Kruvant, supra, 82 N.J. at 440 ).

2014Accordingly, even if permissible under part one of the James test, retroactive application still fails part two because it "would cause a deleterious and irrevocable result." Ibid. (citations and internal marks quotations omitted).

2014Accordingly, even if permissible under part one of the James test, retroactive application still fails part two because it "would cause a deleterious and irrevocable result." Ibid. (citations and internal marks quotations omitted).

2004This conclusion is not inconsistent with our holding in James, supra, where we found that the Legislature intended "to require that an injury be both permanent and serious to permit a plaintiff to cross the amended verbal threshold." 354 N.J.Super. at 596, 808 A. 2d 873 .

1984Although many opinions endorse the efficacy of a so-called preliminary " James hearing," see United States v. James, supra, 590 F. 2d at 577-80 , to determine if the conditions of the coconspirator exception have been met, they generally regard this as a discretionary procedure.

1984Although many opinions endorse the efficacy of a so-called preliminary “James hearing,” see United States v. James, supra, 590 F.2d at 577-80 , to determine if the conditions of the coconspirator exception have been met, they generally regard this as a. discretionary procedure.