9 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1955–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Karins v. City of Atlantic Citygreen1 sentence2022Under N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(6), "[a]n employee may be subject to discipline for: . . . [c]onduct unbecoming a public employee." 'Conduct unbecoming a public employee' is defined as "any conduct which adversely affects the morale or efficiency of the bureau . . . [or] which has a tendency to destroy public respect for municipal employees and confidence in the operation of municipal services." Karins v. Atlantic City, 152 N.J. 532, 554 (1998) (quoting In re Emmons, 63 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Rsb Lab. Services, Inc. v. Bsi Corp.green2 sentences2021We would not presume to adopt such a far-reaching approach as that endorsed by the Alabama Supreme Court in Smith. "[O]ur role as an intermediate appellate court is to follow the dictates of the Supreme Court . . . ." RSB Lab'y Servs., Inc. v. BSI, Corp., 368 N.J. 2021We would not presume to adopt such a far-reaching approach as that endorsed by the Alabama Supreme Court in Smith. "[O]ur role as an intermediate appellate court is to follow the dictates of the Supreme Court . . . ." RSB Lab'y Servs., Inc. v. BSI, Corp., 368 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Sussex Commons Associates, LLC v. Rutgersgreen1 sentence2020Our "obligation when interpreting a law is to determine and carry out the Legislature's intent." Sussex Commons Assocs., LLC v. Rutgers, 210 N.J. 531, 540-41 (2012). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences1955As we had occasion to say in the case of a delay only half as long as that which was visited upon the present defendant: "* * * Our courts speak of the right to a speedy trial as `one of the fundamental safeguards of the individual against the overreaching of the power of the State * * * grounded in the taproots of the common law.' State v. Smith, 10 N.J. 84, 97 (1952) (dissent). 1955As we had occasion to say in the case of a delay only half as long as that which was visited upon the present defendant: "* * * Our courts speak of the right to a speedy trial as `one of the fundamental safeguards of the individual against the overreaching of the power of the State * * * grounded in the taproots of the common law.' State v. Smith, 10 N.J. 84, 97 (1952) (dissent). | 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. Smith
green
2 sentences2010Applying the Smith standard to the proofs adduced at the suppression hearing, we readily conclude that the officers presented sufficient “facts in the totality of the circumstances that would create in a police officer a heightened awareness of danger that would warrant an objectively reasonable officer in securing the scene in a more effective manner by ordering the passenger to alight from the car[,]” id. at 618 , 637 A.2d 158 ; those same circumstances likewise authorize the police officer to open the door of the vehicle as part of ordering a passenger to exit. 2010Applying the Smith standard to the proofs adduced at the suppression hearing, we readily conclude that the officers presented sufficient “facts in the totality of the circumstances that would create in a police officer a heightened awareness of danger that would warrant an objectively reasonable officer in securing the scene in a more effective manner by ordering the passenger to alight from the car[,]” id. at 618 , 637 A.2d 158 ; those same circumstances likewise authorize the police officer to open the door of the vehicle as part of ordering a passenger to exit. | 2 | 2010–2017 |
State v. Hogan
green
2 sentences1996As noted, in the opinion below the Appellate Division interpreted the Smith standard as requiring prosecutors to inform the grand jury of any evidence that, if believed, would establish that the accused did not commit the crime in question. 281 N.J.Super. at 296 , 657 A.2d 462 . 1996As noted, in the opinion below the Appellate Division interpreted the Smith standard as requiring prosecutors to inform the grand jury of any evidence that, if believed, would establish that the accused did not commit the crime in question. 281 N.J.Super. at 296 , 657 A.2d 462 . | 2 | 1996–2001 |
State v. Mai
green
2 sentences2017Most recently, we reaffirmed the Smith standard in Mai, supra, 202 N.J. at 15 , 993 A.2d 1216 . 2017Most recently, we reaffirmed the Smith standard in Mai, supra, 202 N.J. at 15 , 993 A.2d 1216 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Hogan
green
2 sentences2001Hogan, supra, 144 N.J. at 237 , 676 A. 2d 533 . 2001Hogan, supra, 144 N.J. at 237 , 676 A. 2d 533 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith
red
2 sentences1997If “ ‘compelling interest’ really means what it says ... many laws will not meet the test____ [The test] would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost *597 every conceivable kind.” [ Smith, supra, 494 U.S.,] at 888, 110 S.Ct., at 1605 . 1997If “ ‘compelling interest’ really means what it says ... many laws will not meet the test____ [The test] would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost *597 every conceivable kind.” [ Smith, supra, 494 U.S.,] at 888, 110 S.Ct., at 1605 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Epps
neutral
2 sentences1996Applying the interpretation of the Smith standard that the Appellate Division set forth in Hogan , the Epps court concluded that “[i]f the grand jury had believed the victim’s [earlier] statements ..., this evidence would have directly negated defendant’s guilt.” Id. at 379 , 665 A.2d 412 . 1996Applying the interpretation of the Smith standard that the Appellate Division set forth in Hogan , the Epps court concluded that “[i]f the grand jury had believed the victim’s [earlier] statements ..., this evidence would have directly negated defendant’s guilt.” Id. at 379 , 665 A.2d 412 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
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.