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.
8 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1970–2019 0 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. Widmaiergreen2 sentences2019Indeed, "defendant's subjective intent is irrelevant in determining whether the defendant's responses to the officer constitute a refusal to take the test" and "voicing a mere 'preference' to have an attorney present, as defendant in the instant case argues [s]he did, is a delay tactic that cannot be indulged." Widmaier, 157 N.J. at 498 . 2018He contends that he did not refuse because he agreed to take the test and attempted to comply by submitting eleven breaths. "[A] defendant's subjective intent is A-0876-16T2 11 irrelevant in determining whether the defendant's responses to the officer constitute a refusal to take the test." State v. Widmaier, 157 N.J. 475, 498 (1999). "[A]nything substantially short of an unconditional, unequivocal assent to an officer's request that the arrested motorist take the breathalyzer test constitutes a refusal to do so." Widmaier, 157 N.J. at 497 (quoting State v. Bernhardt, 245 N.J. | 2 | 5 |
State v. Bernhardtgreen1 sentence2018He contends that he did not refuse because he agreed to take the test and attempted to comply by submitting eleven breaths. "[A] defendant's subjective intent is A-0876-16T2 11 irrelevant in determining whether the defendant's responses to the officer constitute a refusal to take the test." State v. Widmaier, 157 N.J. 475, 498 (1999). "[A]nything substantially short of an unconditional, unequivocal assent to an officer's request that the arrested motorist take the breathalyzer test constitutes a refusal to do so." Widmaier, 157 N.J. at 497 (quoting State v. Bernhardt, 245 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Bergwallgreen1 sentence1993See In re Bergwall, 173 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pandoligreen1 sentence1981See State v. Pandoli, 109 N.J.Super. 1 (App.Div.1970). | 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. Marquez
green
1 sentence2019"If properly informed in a language they speak or understand while sober, [as here,] drivers can be convicted under the implied consent and refusal statutes." Marquez, 202 N.J. at 513 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Bean v. Strelecki
green
1 sentence1970Bean v. Strelecki, 101 N.J. | 1 | 1970–1970 |
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.