9 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2021 1 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. Boonegreen2 sentences2016See also State v. Boone, 66 N.J. 38, 46-49 (1974) (declining to extend Harris and rejecting "the view that withdrawn pleas are admissible to impeach the credibility of the defendant who elects to testify at his trial"). 2016See also State v. Boone, 66 N.J. 38, 46-49 (1974) (declining to extend Harris and rejecting "the view that withdrawn pleas are admissible to impeach the credibility of the defendant who elects to testify at his trial"). | 2 | 2 |
State Ex Rel. Asgreen1 sentence2021State in Interest of A.S., 203 N.J. 131, 146 (2010). | 1 | 1 |
Green v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1987Nonetheless, underlying all the protections provided by the clause is the principle that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty. [Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 187-88 , 78 S.Ct. 221, 223-24 , 2 L.Ed.2d 199, 204 (1957).] In determining whether to apply the double jeopar 1987Nonetheless, underlying all the protections provided by the clause is the principle that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty. [Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 187-88 , 78 S.Ct. 221, 223-24 , 2 L.Ed.2d 199, 204 (1957).] In determining whether to apply the double jeopar | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bernstein v. BD. OF TRUST. TEACHERS'PEN. & ANN. FUND
green
2 sentences2003Teachers' Pension & Annuity Fund, 151 N.J.Super. 71, 77 , 376 A. 2d 563 (App.Div.1977)] we required that a party seeking the protections of the doctrine of substantial compliance demonstrate among other things "a general compliance with the purpose of the statute." . . . 2003Teachers' Pension & Annuity Fund, 151 N.J.Super. 71, 77 , 376 A. 2d 563 (App.Div.1977)] we required that a party seeking the protections of the doctrine of substantial compliance demonstrate among other things "a general compliance with the purpose of the statute." . . . | 2 | 2002–2003 |
Alan J. Cornblatt, PA v. Barow
green
1 sentence2002In Bernstein we required that a party seeking the protections of the doctrine of substantial compliance demonstrate among other things "a general compliance with the purpose of the statute." Id. 151 N.J.Super. at 77 , 376 A. 2d 563 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Weinberg v. Sprint Corp.
green
2 sentences2002In that respect, as the Court properly acknowledges, Sprint rounded "up to the next minute," ante at 238, 801 A. 2d at 284 , notwithstanding that the rate that it filed with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) "did not explicitly disclose [that] practice[.]" Ibid. 2002In that respect, as the Court properly acknowledges, Sprint rounded "up to the next minute," ante at 238, 801 A. 2d at 284 , notwithstanding that the rate that it filed with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) "did not explicitly disclose [that] practice[.]" Ibid. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Ullmann v. United States
green
2 sentences1977In Ullmann v. United States, 350 U. S. 422 , 76 S. Ct. 497 , 100 L. 1977In Ullmann v. United States, 350 U. S. 422 , 76 S. Ct. 497 , 100 L. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor
red
2 sentences1977As applied to the present problem, if the Government could lawfully refuse to disclose what precise information its independent source at trial provided, the defendant would have no way of telling whether the Government had sufficient independent evidence to sustain a conviction. [13] In Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 378 U.S. 52 , 84 S.Ct. 1594 , 12 L.Ed. 2d 678 (1964), the Court extended the protections under immunity statutes by holding that a witness answering questions under a grant of state immunity had to be given use immunity by federal officials seeking to prosecute him. 1977As applied to the present problem, if the Government could lawfully refuse to disclose what precise information its independent source at trial provided, the defendant would have no way of telling whether the Government had sufficient independent evidence to sustain a conviction. [13] In Murphy v. Waterfront Commission, 378 U.S. 52 , 84 S.Ct. 1594 , 12 L.Ed. 2d 678 (1964), the Court extended the protections under immunity statutes by holding that a witness answering questions under a grant of state immunity had to be given use immunity by federal officials seeking to prosecute him. | 1 | 1977–1977 |
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.