65 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2026 31 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. Krusegreen2 sentences2025While a trial court's sentencing determination is entitled to deference, if it "fails to identify relevant A-3324-21 50 aggravating and mitigating factors, or merely enumerates them, or forgoes a qualitative analysis, or provides little 'insight into the sentencing decision,' then the deferential standard will not apply." Case, 220 N.J. at 65 (citing State v. Kruse, 105 N.J. 354, 363 (1987)). 2024If, however, the sentencing court "fails to identify relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, or merely enumerates them, or forgoes a qualitative analysis, or provides little 'insight into the sentencing decision,' then the deferential standard will not apply." State v. Case, 220 N.J. 48, 65 (2014) (quoting State v. Kruse, 105 N.J. 354, 363 (1987)). | 15 | 18 |
State v. Reinaldo Fuentes (070729)green2 sentences2026See Torres, 246 N.J. at 272; Fuentes, 217 N.J. at 70-74 (mandating "a qualitative analysis of the relevant sentencing factors on the record"); N.J.S.A. 2C:43-2(e) (requiring a statement of reasons on the record). 2025We remand for a resentencing if the trial court "fail[ed] to provide a qualitative analysis of the relevant sentencing factors on the record." State v. Fuentes, 217 N.J. 57, 70 (2014). | 10 | 16 |
State v. Keyesgreen2 sentences2025The degree of corroboration necessary A-1039-23 23 for a finding of probable cause "depends on a qualitative analysis of 'the unique facts and circumstances presented in each case.'" State v. Keyes, 184 N.J. 541, 556 (2005) (quoting State v. Jones, 179 N.J. 377, 390 (2004)). 2021The degree of corroboration necessary for a finding of probable cause "depends on a qualitative analysis of 'the unique facts and circumstances presented in each case.'" State v. Keyes, 184 N.J. 541, 556 (2005) (quoting Jones, 179 N.J. at 390 ). | 4 | 4 |
State v. William A. Case, Jr. (072688)green2 sentences2025While a trial court's sentencing determination is entitled to deference, if it "fails to identify relevant A-3324-21 50 aggravating and mitigating factors, or merely enumerates them, or forgoes a qualitative analysis, or provides little 'insight into the sentencing decision,' then the deferential standard will not apply." Case, 220 N.J. at 65 (citing State v. Kruse, 105 N.J. 354, 363 (1987)). 2024"On the other hand, if the trial court fails to identify relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, or merely enumerates them, or forgoes a qualitative analysis, or provides little 'insight into the sentencing decision,' then the deferential standard will not apply." Ibid. | 3 | 15 |
State v. Joseph M. Jaffe (072259)green2 sentences2021Finally, the sentencing court is required to “view a defendant as [that defendant] stands before the court on the day of sentencing.” State v. Jaffe, 220 N.J. 114, 124 (2014). 2021Finally, the sentencing court is required to “view a defendant as [that defendant] stands before the court on the day of sentencing.” State v. Jaffe, 220 N.J. 114, 124 (2014). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2025The degree of corroboration necessary A-1039-23 23 for a finding of probable cause "depends on a qualitative analysis of 'the unique facts and circumstances presented in each case.'" State v. Keyes, 184 N.J. 541, 556 (2005) (quoting State v. Jones, 179 N.J. 377, 390 (2004)). 2021The degree of corroboration necessary for a finding of probable cause "depends on a qualitative analysis of 'the unique facts and circumstances presented in each case.'" State v. Keyes, 184 N.J. 541, 556 (2005) (quoting Jones, 179 N.J. at 390 ). | 2 | 6 |
State v. Dalzielgreen2 sentences2024"Proper sentencing thus requires an explicit and full statement of aggravating and mitigating factors and how they are weighed and balanced." State v. McFarlane, 224 N.J. 458, 466 (2016) (quoting State v. Randolph, 210 N.J. 330, 348 (2012)). "[W]here mitigating factors are amply based in the record before the sentencing judge, they must be found." State v. Dalziel, 182 N.J. 494, 504 (2005); see Rivera, 249 A-3893-22 14 N.J. at 298 ("Mitigating factors that are suggested in the record or brought to the court's attention should not be ignored."). 2019State v. Dalziel, 182 N.J. 494, 505 (2005). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Randolphgreen2 sentences2024"Proper sentencing thus requires an explicit and full statement of aggravating and mitigating factors and how they are weighed and balanced." State v. McFarlane, 224 N.J. 458, 466 (2016) (quoting State v. Randolph, 210 N.J. 330, 348 (2012)). "[W]here mitigating factors are amply based in the record before the sentencing judge, they must be found." State v. Dalziel, 182 N.J. 494, 504 (2005); see Rivera, 249 A-3893-22 14 N.J. at 298 ("Mitigating factors that are suggested in the record or brought to the court's attention should not be ignored."). 2024"Proper sentencing . . . requires an explicit and full statement of aggravating and mitigating factors and how they are weighed and balanced." State v. McFarlane, 224 N.J. 458, 466 (2016) (quoting State v. Randolph, 210 N.J. 330, 348 (2012)); see also R. 3:21-4(h). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Patrick McFarlane(075938)green2 sentences2024"Proper sentencing thus requires an explicit and full statement of aggravating and mitigating factors and how they are weighed and balanced." State v. McFarlane, 224 N.J. 458, 466 (2016) (quoting State v. Randolph, 210 N.J. 330, 348 (2012)). "[W]here mitigating factors are amply based in the record before the sentencing judge, they must be found." State v. Dalziel, 182 N.J. 494, 504 (2005); see Rivera, 249 A-3893-22 14 N.J. at 298 ("Mitigating factors that are suggested in the record or brought to the court's attention should not be ignored."). 2024"Proper sentencing . . . requires an explicit and full statement of aggravating and mitigating factors and how they are weighed and balanced." State v. McFarlane, 224 N.J. 458, 466 (2016) (quoting State v. Randolph, 210 N.J. 330, 348 (2012)); see also R. 3:21-4(h). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Rothgreen2 sentences2022"When the court fails to provide a qualitative analysis of the relevant sentencing factors on the record, an appellate court may remand for resentencing." Ibid. 2017We must affirm defendant's sentence unless (1) the sentencing guidelines were violated; (2) the aggravating and mitigating factors found by the sentencing court were not based upon competent and credible evidence in the record; or (3) "the application of the guidelines to the facts of [the] case makes the sentence clearly unreasonable so as to shock the judicial conscience." [Ibid. (quoting Roth, supra, 95 N.J. at 364 - 65).] We will remand for resentencing if the sentencing court fails to provide a qualitative analysis of the relevant sentencing factors, ibid. (citing Kruse, supra, 105 N.J. a | 1 | 5 |
New Jerseyans for a Death Penalty Moratorium v. New Jersey Department of Correctionsgreen2 sentences2020A-5356-18T2 11 To determine a prevailing requestor's degree of success, a court "should conduct a qualitative analysis that weighs such factors as the number of documents received versus the number of documents requested, and whether the purpose of [ ] OPRA was vindicated by the litigation." New Jerseyans, 185 N.J. at 155 . "[S]uccess under [ ] OPRA – even a high degree of success – might be acquiring that one smoking gun record hidden amongst hundreds of pages or . . . it may be the absence of any records." Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). 2020A-5356-18T2 11 To determine a prevailing requestor's degree of success, a court "should conduct a qualitative analysis that weighs such factors as the number of documents received versus the number of documents requested, and whether the purpose of [ ] OPRA was vindicated by the litigation." New Jerseyans, 185 N.J. at 155 . "[S]uccess under [ ] OPRA – even a high degree of success – might be acquiring that one smoking gun record hidden amongst hundreds of pages or . . . it may be the absence of any records." Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 3 |
State v. Zuticgreen2 sentences2025And, although one factor may be insufficient to support probable cause "if considered in isolation," all the factors considered together may "reinforce or augment one another and become sufficient to demonstrate probable cause." State v. Zutic, 155 N.J. 103, 113 (1998) (citing Gates, 462 U.S. at 233 ). 2021And, although one factor may be insufficient to support probable cause "if considered in isolation," all the factors considered together may "reinforce or augment one another and become sufficient to demonstrate probable cause." Zutic, 155 N.J. at 113 (citing Gates, 462 U.S. at 233 ). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Bieniekgreen2 sentences2024"After balancing the factors, the trial court may impose a term within the permissible range for the offense." Id. at 608 . "[I]f the trial court fails to identify relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, or merely enumerates them, or forgoes a qualitative analysis, or provides little 'insight into the sentencing decision,' then the deferential standard will not apply." State v. Case, 220 N.J. 49, 65 (2014) (quoting State v. Kruse, 105 N.J. 354, 363 (1987)). "[T]rial judges have discretion to decide if sentences should run concurrently or consecutively." State v. Miller, 205 N.J. 109, 128 2021See Fuentes, 217 N.J. at 70 ("When the trial court fails to provide a qualitative analysis of the relevant sentencing factors on the record, an appellate court may remand for A-1960-19 20 resentencing.") (emphasis added); State v. Bieniek, 200 N.J. 601, 609 (2010) ("our case law does not require that trial courts explicitly reject every mitigating factor argued to the court"); see also State v. Jones, 179 N.J. 377, 407 (2004) ("Sentencing judges must fully assess the totality of circumstances surrounding a defendant's actual criminal offense."). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Lawlessgreen2 sentences2022Next, defendant contends the trial court "violated its obligations to engage in a qualitative analysis of the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors and to explain the reasons behind [defendant's] sentence." "Appellate review of sentencing is deferential, and appellate courts" should not "substitute their judgment for those of our sentencing courts." State v. Case, 220 N.J. 49, 65 (2014) (citing State v. Lawless, 214 N.J. 594, 606 (2013)). 2021If a sentence "shock[s] the judicial conscience" or "the trial court fail[ed] to identify relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, or merely enumerates them, or foregoes a qualitative analysis, or provides little 'insight into the sentencing decision,' the deferential standard will not apply." Ibid. (quoting State v. Kruse, 105 N.J. 354, 363 (1987)). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Millergreen1 sentence2024"After balancing the factors, the trial court may impose a term within the permissible range for the offense." Id. at 608 . "[I]f the trial court fails to identify relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, or merely enumerates them, or forgoes a qualitative analysis, or provides little 'insight into the sentencing decision,' then the deferential standard will not apply." State v. Case, 220 N.J. 49, 65 (2014) (quoting State v. Kruse, 105 N.J. 354, 363 (1987)). "[T]rial judges have discretion to decide if sentences should run concurrently or consecutively." State v. Miller, 205 N.J. 109, 128 | 1 | 1 |
State v. Yarboughred1 sentence2024The judge may impose consecutive sentences after considering the factors outlined in State v. Yarbough, 100 N.J. 627, 643-44 (1985). | 1 | 1 |
New Jersey DEP v. GLOUCESTER ENV. MGT. SERVICESgreen1 sentence2021To reach a decision, the court considered N.J.S.A. 13:1E-103, part of the Closure Act, which states that "[e]very owner or operator of a sanitary landfill facility shall be jointly and severally liable for the proper operation and closure of the facility . . . ." It adopted the definition of "operator" in New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection v. Gloucester Environmental Management Services, 800 F. Supp. 1210, 1215 (D.N.J. 1992), which held that A-0309-19 14 an individual is "considered an operator under the 'usual meanings' of the term," such that he or she "shows a high degree of | 1 | 1 |
Silva v. Autos of Amboy, Inc.green1 sentence2020We are unpersuaded by plaintiff's reliance on Silva v. Autos of Amboy, Inc., 267 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Funicellogreen1 sentence2020State v. Keyes, 184 N.J. 541, 556 (2005) (citing Jones, 179 N.J. at 390 ). "[W]hether or not probable cause exists 'involves no more than a value judgment upon a factual A-0030-19T1 9 complex rather than an evident application of a precise rule of law, and indeed a value judgment which inevitably reflects the seasoning and experience of the one who judges.'" Schneider, 163 N.J. at 362 (quoting State v. Funicello, 60 N.J. 60, 72-73 (1972) (Weintraub, C.J., concurring)). | 1 | 1 |
Alabama v. Whitegreen1 sentence2018Whether the police corroboration suffices to justify the police intrusion "turns ultimately on the totality of the circumstances." State 13 A-1442-16T4 v. Rodriguez, 172 N.J. 117, 128 (2002) (citing Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 330 (1990)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rodriguezgreen1 sentence2018Whether the police corroboration suffices to justify the police intrusion "turns ultimately on the totality of the circumstances." State 13 A-1442-16T4 v. Rodriguez, 172 N.J. 117, 128 (2002) (citing Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 330 (1990)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pinedagreen1 sentence2017Ibid. (citing State v. Pineda, 119 N.J. 621, 628 (1990)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Castagnagreen2 sentences2013See Castagna, supra, 187 N.J. at 312 , 901 A.2d 363 . 2013See Castagna, supra, 187 N.J. at 312 , 901 A.2d 363 . | 1 | 1 |
| Avalon Home & Land Owners Ass'n v. Borough of Avalongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Town of Belleville v. Parrillo's, Inc.green | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Illinois v. Gates
green
2 sentences2025And, although one factor may be insufficient to support probable cause "if considered in isolation," all the factors considered together may "reinforce or augment one another and become sufficient to demonstrate probable cause." State v. Zutic, 155 N.J. 103, 113 (1998) (citing Gates, 462 U.S. at 233 ). 2021And, although one factor may be insufficient to support probable cause "if considered in isolation," all the factors considered together may "reinforce or augment one another and become sufficient to demonstrate probable cause." Zutic, 155 N.J. at 113 (citing Gates, 462 U.S. at 233 ). | 2 | 2021–2025 |
State v. Pierce
green
2 sentences2022Torres requires "an explanation for the overall fairness of a sentence by the sentencing court . . . to 'foster[ ] consistency'" and curtail "'arbitrary or irrational sentencing.'" Id. at 272 (quoting State v. Pierce, 188 N.J. 155, 166-67 , (2006)). 2022The Court held "an explanation for the overall fairness of a sentence by the sentencing court is required in this setting, as in other discretionary sentencing settings, to 'foster[] consistency in . . . sentencing in that arbitrary or irrational sentencing can be curtailed and, if necessary, corrected through appellate review.'" Id. at 272 (quoting State v. Pierce, 188 N.J. 155, 166-67 , (2006)). | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Schneider v. Simonini
green
1 sentence2020State v. Keyes, 184 N.J. 541, 556 (2005) (citing Jones, 179 N.J. at 390 ). "[W]hether or not probable cause exists 'involves no more than a value judgment upon a factual A-0030-19T1 9 complex rather than an evident application of a precise rule of law, and indeed a value judgment which inevitably reflects the seasoning and experience of the one who judges.'" Schneider, 163 N.J. at 362 (quoting State v. Funicello, 60 N.J. 60, 72-73 (1972) (Weintraub, C.J., concurring)). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Js v. Jf
green
1 sentence2017In J.S. v. J.F. , 410 N.J. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Tribuzio v. Roder
green
2 sentences2006A qualitative analysis is required, weighing and balancing the nature and duration of the prior relationship, the intervening contacts, the nature of the precipitating event, and any other appropriate factors. [ 356 N.J.Super. at 597 , 813 A.2d 1210 ], Among “other appropriate factors” that courts have considered is the likelihood of ongoing contact. 2006A qualitative analysis is required, weighing and balancing the nature and duration of the prior relationship, the intervening contacts, the nature of the precipitating event, and any other appropriate factors. [ 356 N.J.Super. at 597 , 813 A.2d 1210 ], Among “other appropriate factors” that courts have considered is the likelihood of ongoing contact. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Sperling v. Teplitsky
green
2 sentences2006Thus, in Sperling v. Teplitsky, supra, 294 N.J.Super. at 320 , 683 A.2d 244 , a case involving a former dating relationship, the court declined jurisdiction where “such persons can reasonably expect that there will be no need for them ever to come in contact.” By contrast, the court in Storch v. Sauerhoff, 334 N.J.Super. 226, 234-35 , 757 A.2d 836 (Ch.Div.2000), found jurisdiction based on the “hybrid of two jurisdictional grounds: ‘present household member’ and ‘former household member,’ ” where the parties had to “interact on a frequent basis.” This is consistent with the notion expressed in 2006Thus, in Sperling v. Teplitsky, supra, 294 N.J.Super. at 320 , 683 A.2d 244 , a case involving a former dating relationship, the court declined jurisdiction where “such persons can reasonably expect that there will be no need for them ever to come in contact.” By contrast, the court in Storch v. Sauerhoff, 334 N.J.Super. 226, 234-35 , 757 A.2d 836 (Ch.Div.2000), found jurisdiction based on the “hybrid of two jurisdictional grounds: ‘present household member’ and ‘former household member,’ ” where the parties had to “interact on a frequent basis.” This is consistent with the notion expressed in | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Storch v. Sauerhoff
green
2 sentences2006Thus, in Sperling v. Teplitsky, supra, 294 N.J.Super. at 320 , 683 A.2d 244 , a case involving a former dating relationship, the court declined jurisdiction where “such persons can reasonably expect that there will be no need for them ever to come in contact.” By contrast, the court in Storch v. Sauerhoff, 334 N.J.Super. 226, 234-35 , 757 A.2d 836 (Ch.Div.2000), found jurisdiction based on the “hybrid of two jurisdictional grounds: ‘present household member’ and ‘former household member,’ ” where the parties had to “interact on a frequent basis.” This is consistent with the notion expressed in 2006Thus, in Sperling v. Teplitsky, supra, 294 N.J.Super. at 320 , 683 A.2d 244 , a case involving a former dating relationship, the court declined jurisdiction where “such persons can reasonably expect that there will be no need for them ever to come in contact.” By contrast, the court in Storch v. Sauerhoff, 334 N.J.Super. 226, 234-35 , 757 A.2d 836 (Ch.Div.2000), found jurisdiction based on the “hybrid of two jurisdictional grounds: ‘present household member’ and ‘former household member,’ ” where the parties had to “interact on a frequent basis.” This is consistent with the notion expressed in | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| State v. Smith green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Grundlehner v. Dangler green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| Hantman v. Randolph Twp. green | 1 | 2003–2003 |
| State v. Marshall green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Haggerty v. Cedeno green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Performance Motorcars v. Peat Marwick green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Performance Motorcars of Westchester, Inc. v. MARWICK green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Ritondo v. Pekala green | 1 | 1999–1999 |
| Lopez v. New Jersey Bell Telephone Co. neutral | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Carfagno v. Carfagno green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Agudelo v. Pan American World Airways, Inc. green | 1 | 1994–1994 |
| Veazey v. Doremus green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
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.