Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1974–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ferolito v. Park Hill Associationgreen1 sentence2022Ferolito v. Park Hill Ass'n, Inc., 408 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Pride v. Inter-State Business Men's Accident Ass'ngreen1 sentence1974See State v. Welke, Minn. 216 N.W. 2 d 641 (1974); State v. Harding, N.H., 320 A. 2 d 646 (1974); cf. Papp v. State, 281 So. 2 d 600 (Fla. App. 1973). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Welkegreen1 sentence1974See State v. Welke, Minn. 216 N. W. 2d 641 (1974); State v. Harding, N. H., 320 A. 2d 646 (1974); cf. Papp v. State, 281 So. 2d 600 (Fla. App. 1973). | 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. Sheehan
green
2 sentences2020As we explained in Sheehan, "[t]he 'essential ingredient' regarding the specificity requirement for search warrants . . . 'relates not to the number of occupants but to the existence of separate units or subunits within a structure.'" Ibid. (citation omitted). 2020"In the community living or multiple-occupancy situation, the courts have generally held that a 'warrant describing the entire [dwelling unit] so occupied is valid and will justify a search of the entire premises.'" Ibid. (citation omitted). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Sholtis v. American Cyanamid Co.
green
1 sentence2015Cyanamid Co., 238 N.J. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Grasser v. United Healthcare Corp.
green
2 sentences2001Most recently, in Grasser, supra, 343 N.J.Super. at 250 , 778 A. 2d 521 , we applied the specificity of waiver rule mandated by Alamo, Quigley, and Garfinkel , and concluded that the language of the arbitration agreement was as nonspecific as the language in these three cases. 2001Most recently, in Grasser, supra, 343 N.J.Super. at 250 , 778 A. 2d 521 , we applied the specificity of waiver rule mandated by Alamo, Quigley, and Garfinkel , and concluded that the language of the arbitration agreement was as nonspecific as the language in these three cases. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Coatney
green
2 sentences1987The "essential ingredient" regarding the specificity requirement for search warrants in this context "relates not to the number of occupants but to the existence of separate units or subunits within a structure." Ibid. 1987The mere fact that a structure contains several residents who are not related to one another "does not automatically convert its rooms into [separate and private] `subunits.'" Ibid. | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Cosmopolitan Mutual Insurance v. Continental Casualty Co.
green
1 sentence1983Nevertheless, the court applied the specificity test and found both policies before it specific, precipitating the decision to require proration. 28 N.J. at 560 . | 1 | 1983–1983 |
State v. De Simone
green
2 sentences1976"On principle, the sufficiency of a warrant to search persons identified only by their presence at a specified place should depend upon the facts." 60 N.J. at 321 . *500 The court in DeSimone found that the warrant to search an identified automobile and all persons found therein, on a showing that the automobile had been observed participating in a floating lottery operation, was based on probable cause and satisfied the specificity requirement so as to validate the search. 1976In DeSimone the place to be searched was so limited and the illegal operation so overt as to delimit an otherwise broad category of individuals included in the directive to search "all persons present." "Such a setting furnishes not only probable cause but also a designation of the persons to be searched which functionally is as precise as a dimensional portrait of them." 60 N.J. at 322 . | 1 | 1976–1976 |
State v. Harding
green
1 sentence1974See State v. Welke, Minn. 216 N. W. 2d 641 (1974); State v. Harding, N. H., 320 A. 2d 646 (1974); cf. Papp v. State, 281 So. 2d 600 (Fla. App. 1973). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Papp v. State
green
1 sentence1974See State v. Welke, Minn. 216 N. W. 2d 641 (1974); State v. Harding, N. H., 320 A. 2d 646 (1974); cf. Papp v. State, 281 So. 2d 600 (Fla. App. 1973). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.