9 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 2017–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Crisoforo Montalvo (077331) (Monmouth and Statewide)green2 sentences2021"When a party does not object to a jury instruction, this court reviews the instruction for plain error." State v. Montalvo, 229 N.J. 300, 320 (2017) (citing R. 1:7-2; State v. Wakefield, 190 N.J. 397, 472-73 (2007)). 2018Our Supreme Court has stated: "When a party does not object to a jury instruction, this Court reviews the instruction for plain error." State v. Montalvo, 229 N.J. 300, 320 (2017) (citing R. 1:7-2). | 3 | 3 |
Michel v. Louisianagreen2 sentences2025A court reviews the claim under "a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance"; the defendant must overcome the presumption that the challenged action was part of a "sound trial strategy." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 (quoting Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101 (1955)); see also B.R., 192 N.J. at 307-08 . 2022A court reviews the claim under "a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance"; the defendant must overcome the presumption that the challenged action was part of a "'sound trial strategy.'" Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 (quoting Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101 (1955)); see also B.R., 192 N.J. at 307-08 . | 2 | 2 |
New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. B.R.green2 sentences2025A court reviews the claim under "a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance"; the defendant must overcome the presumption that the challenged action was part of a "sound trial strategy." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 (quoting Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101 (1955)); see also B.R., 192 N.J. at 307-08 . 2022A court reviews the claim under "a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance"; the defendant must overcome the presumption that the challenged action was part of a "'sound trial strategy.'" Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 (quoting Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101 (1955)); see also B.R., 192 N.J. at 307-08 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Jimenezgreen2 sentences2021"When a party does not object to a jury instruction, this court reviews the instruction for plain error." State v. Montalvo, 229 N.J. 300, 320 (2017) (citing R. 1:7-2; State v. Wakefield, 190 N.J. 397, 472-73 (2007)). 2017R. 1:7-2; State v. Wakefield, 190 N.J. 397, 472-73 , 921 A.2d 954 (2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1146 , 128 S.Ct. 1074 , 169 L.Ed.2d 817 (2008). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Jenkinsgreen1 sentence2021A-2497-16T4 15 Even if there is no request by a party to charge the jury on a lesser - included offense, a trial court has an independent, non-delegable duty to instruct a jury on such a charge "when the facts adduced at trial clearly indicate that a jury could convict on the lesser while acquitting on the greater offense." State v. Jenkins, 178 N.J. 347, 361 (2004) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fritzgreen1 sentence2019This court reviews a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the two-prong test established by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), and subsequently adopted by our Supreme Court in State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987). | 1 | 1 |
In re Jadejagreen1 sentence2017See State v. Montalvo, 229 N.J. 300, 320 , 162 A.3d 270 (2017) (“Without an objection at the time a jury instruction is given ... this Court reviews the instruction for plain error.” (citations omitted)); see also State v. Townsend, 186 N.J. 473, 498 , 897 A.2d 316 (2006) (reviewing trial court’s lack of limiting instruction on proper use of expert testimony under plain error standard set forth in Rule 2:10-2 because defendant did not object at trial and raised issue for first time on appeal); State v. Krivacska, 341 N.J.Super. 1, 42-43 , 775 A.2d 6 (App. Div.) (finding that trial court’s fail | 1 | 1 |
State v. Townsendgreen2 sentences2017See State v. Montalvo, 229 N.J. 300, 320 , 162 A.3d 270 (2017) (“Without an objection at the time a jury instruction is given ... this Court reviews the instruction for plain error.” (citations omitted)); see also State v. Townsend, 186 N.J. 473, 498 , 897 A.2d 316 (2006) (reviewing trial court’s lack of limiting instruction on proper use of expert testimony under plain error standard set forth in Rule 2:10-2 because defendant did not object at trial and raised issue for first time on appeal); State v. Krivacska, 341 N.J.Super. 1, 42-43 , 775 A.2d 6 (App. Div.) (finding that trial court’s fail 2017See State v. Montalvo, ___ N.J. ___, ___ (2017) (slip op. at 23) (“Without an objection at the time a jury instruction is given . . . this Court reviews the instruction for plain error.” (citations omitted)); see also State v. Townsend, 186 N.J. 473, 498 (2006) (reviewing trial court’s lack of limiting instruction on proper use of expert testimony under plain error standard set forth in Rule 2:10-2 because defendant did not object at trial and raised issue for first time on appeal); State v. Krivacska, 341 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Krivacskagreen2 sentences2017See State v. Montalvo, 229 N.J. 300, 320 , 162 A.3d 270 (2017) (“Without an objection at the time a jury instruction is given ... this Court reviews the instruction for plain error.” (citations omitted)); see also State v. Townsend, 186 N.J. 473, 498 , 897 A.2d 316 (2006) (reviewing trial court’s lack of limiting instruction on proper use of expert testimony under plain error standard set forth in Rule 2:10-2 because defendant did not object at trial and raised issue for first time on appeal); State v. Krivacska, 341 N.J.Super. 1, 42-43 , 775 A.2d 6 (App. Div.) (finding that trial court’s fail 2017See State v. Montalvo, ___ N.J. ___, ___ (2017) (slip op. at 23) (“Without an objection at the time a jury instruction is given . . . this Court reviews the instruction for plain error.” (citations omitted)); see also State v. Townsend, 186 N.J. 473, 498 (2006) (reviewing trial court’s lack of limiting instruction on proper use of expert testimony under plain error standard set forth in Rule 2:10-2 because defendant did not object at trial and raised issue for first time on appeal); State v. Krivacska, 341 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 |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2025A court reviews the claim under "a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance"; the defendant must overcome the presumption that the challenged action was part of a "sound trial strategy." Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 (quoting Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101 (1955)); see also B.R., 192 N.J. at 307-08 . 2022A court reviews the claim under "a strong presumption that counsel's conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance"; the defendant must overcome the presumption that the challenged action was part of a "'sound trial strategy.'" Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689 (quoting Michel v. Louisiana, 350 U.S. 91, 101 (1955)); see also B.R., 192 N.J. at 307-08 . | 3 | 2019–2025 |
Counterman v. Colorado
green
1 sentence2024The Court reviews the doctrine of “true threats” -- which “lie outside the bounds of the First Amendment’s protection,” Counterman, 600 U.S. at 72 -- as developed through Supreme Court jurisprudence. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Carpet Remnant Warehouse, Inc. v. New Jersey Department of Labor
green
1 sentence2022For such situations, case law provides a variety of factors to be considered when evaluating a worker’s “ability to maintain an independent business,” and the Court reviews those factors, including the factors set forth in Carpet Remnant, 125 N.J. at 592-93 . (pp. 19-22) 4. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Baez v. Nike Inc.
green
2 sentences2017See State v. Montalvo, 229 N.J. 300, 320 , 162 A.3d 270 (2017) (“Without an objection at the time a jury instruction is given ... this Court reviews the instruction for plain error.” (citations omitted)); see also State v. Townsend, 186 N.J. 473, 498 , 897 A.2d 316 (2006) (reviewing trial court’s lack of limiting instruction on proper use of expert testimony under plain error standard set forth in Rule 2:10-2 because defendant did not object at trial and raised issue for first time on appeal); State v. Krivacska, 341 N.J.Super. 1, 42-43 , 775 A.2d 6 (App. Div.) (finding that trial court’s fail 2017Super. 1, 42-43 (App. Div.) (finding that trial court’s failure to provide limiting instruction was not plain error because defendant failed to request one), certif. denied, 170 N.J. 206 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1012 , 122 S. Ct. 1594 , 152 L. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Palmer v. United States
green
2 sentences2017See State v. Montalvo, 229 N.J. 300, 320 , 162 A.3d 270 (2017) (“Without an objection at the time a jury instruction is given ... this Court reviews the instruction for plain error.” (citations omitted)); see also State v. Townsend, 186 N.J. 473, 498 , 897 A.2d 316 (2006) (reviewing trial court’s lack of limiting instruction on proper use of expert testimony under plain error standard set forth in Rule 2:10-2 because defendant did not object at trial and raised issue for first time on appeal); State v. Krivacska, 341 N.J.Super. 1, 42-43 , 775 A.2d 6 (App. Div.) (finding that trial court’s fail 2017Super. 1, 42-43 (App. Div.) (finding that trial court’s failure to provide limiting instruction was not plain error because defendant failed to request one), certif. denied, 170 N.J. 206 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1012 , 122 S. Ct. 1594 , 152 L. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Commercial Union Insurance Co.
green
1 sentence2017Super. 1, 42-43 (App. Div.) (finding that trial court’s failure to provide limiting instruction was not plain error because defendant failed to request one), certif. denied, 170 N.J. 206 (2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1012 , 122 S. Ct. 1594 , 152 L. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.
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.