9 New Jersey opinions name it 1 courts 1977–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Fordgreen2 sentences2020The judge found the certification in support of plaintiff's motion fully complied with the personal knowledge requirement of R. 1:6-6; see Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Ford, 418 N.J. 2018Defendants asserted plaintiff "has never been a trustee," that "[t]he documents of the loan never became property of the trust, the documents of the loan never were legally possessed by the trustee (plaintiff)[,] the trustee never became the note holder nor a nonholder with the right[s] of a holder . . . whether at the closing date of the trust per the [pooling and servicing agreement] nor subsequently on or before the filing of the present action." The General Equity judge found the certification submitted by an employee of plaintiff's servicer that her review of the servicer's records reveal | 2 | 2 |
Tumarkin v. Friedmangreen1 sentence2021Just as a party-opponent's statement of opinion need not satisfy the personal knowledge requirement of the lay opinion rule, N.J.R.E. 701, see Parker, 440 A-3336-18 17 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Branchgreen1 sentence2019This is not a situation of a police officer witness implying to jurors that he "possesses superior knowledge, outside the record, that incriminate the defendant." State v. Branch, 182 N.J. 338, 351 (2005). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Ammargreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., United States v. Ammar, 714 F.2d 238, 254 (3d Cir.) ("[I]t is clear from the Advisory Committee Notes that the drafters intended that the personal knowledge foundation requirement of [F.R.E.] 602 should . . . not [apply] to admissions . . . admissible under [F.R.E.] 801(d)(2)."), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 936 , 104 S. Ct. 344 , 78 L. | 1 | 1 |
Ostric v. Corporation of St. Mary's Collegegreen1 sentence2015See, e.g., United States v. Ammar, 714 F.2d 238, 254 (3d Cir.) ("[I]t is clear from the Advisory Committee Notes that the drafters intended that the personal knowledge foundation requirement of [F.R.E.] 602 should . . . not [apply] to admissions . . . admissible under [F.R.E.] 801(d)(2)."), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 936 , 104 S. Ct. 344 , 78 L. | 1 | 1 |
PRC Harris, Inc. v. Boeing Co.green2 sentences2015See, e.g., United States v. Ammar, 714 F.2d 238, 254 (3d Cir.) ("[I]t is clear from the Advisory Committee Notes that the drafters intended that the personal knowledge foundation requirement of [F.R.E.] 602 should . . . not [apply] to admissions . . . admissible under [F.R.E.] 801(d)(2)."), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 936 , 104 S. Ct. 344 , 78 L. 2015See, e.g., United States v. Ammar, 714 F.2d 238, 254 (3d Cir.) ("[I]t is clear from the Advisory Committee Notes that the drafters intended that the personal knowledge foundation requirement of [F.R.E.] 602 should . . . not [apply] to admissions . . . admissible under [F.R.E.] 801(d)(2)."), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 936 , 104 S. Ct. 344 , 78 L. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Martorelligreen1 sentence1977See State v. Martorelli, supra 136 N.J. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Frances Parker, Etc. v. John W. Poole, M.D.
green
2 sentences2021Nor must the proponent demonstrate that the party-opponent's statement has an "indicia of reliability," as defendants argue. "[S]tatements by a party - opponent are not subject to trustworthiness considerations." Parker, 440 N.J. 2021Just as a party-opponent's statement of opinion need not satisfy the personal knowledge requirement of the lay opinion rule, N.J.R.E. 701, see Parker, 440 N.J. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
Paff v. New Jersey Dept. of Labor
green
2 sentences2017Super. at 341 .7 The order permitted defendant to provide multiple sworn statements "to adequately explain the searches in accordance with the personal knowledge requirement." Defendant provided two certifications in response to the court's June 3, 2014 order: a certification from Drewniak 7 In Paff, we required the records custodian to provide a sworn statement describing: (1) the search undertaken to satisfy the request; (2)the documents found that are responsive to the request; (3) the determination of whether the document or any part thereof is confidential and the source of the confidenti 2017Super. at 341 .] We also required that the statement include an appendix with "an index of all documents deemed by the agency to be confidential in whole or in part, with an accurate description of the documents deemed confidential." Ibid. 10 A-3947-14T3 purporting to describe defendant's response to plaintiff's December 17, 2013 request, and a certification from Alexander H. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival & Research Center, Inc.
green
1 sentence2015Ed. 2d 311 (1983); Mahlandt v. Wild Canid Survival & Research Ctr., Inc., 588 F.2d 626 , 630-31 (8th Cir. 1978) (holding that the personal knowledge requirement does not apply to F.R.E. 801(d)(2)). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
State v. Gomez
green
2 sentences2001She only contends that Ejaz' related self-exculpatory statement that he told Hussein defendant had beaten Imelda *153 on the day of her death should have been redacted or the entire statement barred pursuant to State v. Gomez, 246 N.J.Super. 209, 215 , 587 A. 2d 272 (App.Div.1991), because that allegation was incompetent and inadmissible under the personal knowledge requirement of N.J.R.E. 602 and any hearsay exception. 2001She only contends that Ejaz' related self-exculpatory statement that he told Hussein defendant had beaten Imelda *153 on the day of her death should have been redacted or the entire statement barred pursuant to State v. Gomez, 246 N.J.Super. 209, 215 , 587 A. 2d 272 (App.Div.1991), because that allegation was incompetent and inadmissible under the personal knowledge requirement of N.J.R.E. 602 and any hearsay exception. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
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.