9 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Cummingsgreen2 sentences2008"The second and third factors come to the forefront of the retroactivity analysis when the inquiry into the purpose of the new rule does not, by itself, reveal whether retroactive application of the new rule would be appropriate." Id. at 97 , 875 A. 2d 906 (citation omitted). 2008"The second and third factors come to the forefront of the retroactivity analysis when the inquiry into the purpose of the new rule does not, by itself, reveal whether retroactive application of the new rule would be appropriate." Id. at 97 , 875 A. 2d 906 (citation omitted). | 1 | 5 |
State v. Gallegangreen1 sentence2018As for the second and third factors, the Court has noted, "[a]ny delay that defendant caused or requested would not weigh in favor of finding a speedy trial violation." State v. Gallegan, 117 N.J. 345, 355 (1989). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bursteingreen2 sentences1996Id. at 406-07 , 427 A. 2d 525 . *252 The second and third factors come to the forefront of the retroactivity analysis when the inquiry into the purpose of the new rule does not, by itself, reveal whether retroactive application of the new rule would be appropriate. 1996Id. at 406-07 , 427 A. 2d 525 . *252 The second and third factors come to the forefront of the retroactivity analysis when the inquiry into the purpose of the new rule does not, by itself, reveal whether retroactive application of the new rule would be appropriate. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Colbert
green
2 sentences2008Importantly, courts have wide discretion in the application of these factors and "the retroactivity determination often turns more generally on the Court's view of what is just and consonant with public policy in the particular situation presented." State v. Colbert, 190 N.J. 14, 28 , 918 A. 2d 14 (2007) (citations omitted). 2008Importantly, courts have wide discretion in the application of these factors and "the retroactivity determination often turns more generally on the Court's view of what is just and consonant with public policy in the particular situation presented." State v. Colbert, 190 N.J. 14, 28 , 918 A. 2d 14 (2007) (citations omitted). | 2 | 2008–2008 |
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City
green
2 sentences2025The second Penn Central factor -- whether the regulation has “interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations,” 438 U.S. at 124 -- focuses on whether the restriction that causes the adverse economic impact of the first factor came as a surprise, a change that reasonable investors could not have 31 anticipated and therefore did not factor into their choice to invest. 2025The second Penn Central factor -- whether the regulation has “interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations,” 438 U.S. at 124 -- focuses on whether the restriction that causes the adverse economic impact of the first factor came as a surprise, a change that reasonable investors could not have 31 anticipated and therefore did not factor into their choice to invest. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Dock
green
1 sentence2024As noted, the factors are "not of equal weight" and the first is "often the pivotal consideration ." Dock, 205 N.J. at 255 (quoting Cummings, 184 N.J. at 97 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Konzelman v. Konzelman
green
1 sentence2019A-5865-17T4 18 Konzelman differed from the economic needs test set forth in Gayet, and found that an agreement between the parties to terminate alimony upon cohabitation is valid "without regard to the economic consequences of that relationship." 158 N.J. at 196 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Knight
green
2 sentences2011Although those three factors have received detailed attention in our retroactivity case law, our cases also indicate that the retroactivity determination often turns more generally on the court’s view of what is just and consonant with public policy in the particular situation presented. [Ibid. (quoting Knight, supra, 145 N.J. at 251 , 678 A.2d 642 ) (internal quotation marks omitted).] We have made clear that “[t]hose factors are not of equal weight, as the first factor, the purpose of the new rule, is often the pivotal consideration,” and we have emphasized that “the second and third factors 2011Although those three factors have received detailed attention in our retroactivity case law, our cases also indicate that the retroactivity determination often turns more generally on the court’s view of what is just and consonant with public policy in the particular situation presented. [Ibid. (quoting Knight, supra, 145 N.J. at 251 , 678 A.2d 642 ) (internal quotation marks omitted).] We have made clear that “[t]hose factors are not of equal weight, as the first factor, the purpose of the new rule, is often the pivotal consideration,” and we have emphasized that “the second and third factors | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.