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 1828–2026 4 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jackson-Bey v. Hanslmaiergreen2 sentences2025Bd. of Orthopaedic Surgery, 11 F.4th 200, 206 (3d Cir. 2021)); see also Decastro, 682 F.3d at 164 ; Jackson-Bey v. Hanslmaier, 115 F.3d 1091, 1096 (2d Cir. 1997). 2025Bd. of Orthopaedic Surgery, 11 F.4th 200, 206 (3d Cir. 2021)); see also Decastro, A-3121-23 15 682 F.3d at 164 ; Jackson-Bey v. Hanslmaier, 115 F.3d 1091, 1096 (2d Cir. 1997). [Id. at 505-06.] We concluded neither defendant established futility because they did not make a substantial showing they would have been granted a handgun carry permit but for the justifiable need requirement. | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Decastrogreen2 sentences2025Bd. of Orthopaedic Surgery, 11 F.4th 200, 206 (3d Cir. 2021)); see also Decastro, 682 F.3d at 164 ; Jackson-Bey v. Hanslmaier, 115 F.3d 1091, 1096 (2d Cir. 1997). 2025Bd. of Orthopaedic Surgery, 11 F.4th 200, 206 (3d Cir. 2021)); see also Decastro, A-3121-23 15 682 F.3d at 164 ; Jackson-Bey v. Hanslmaier, 115 F.3d 1091, 1096 (2d Cir. 1997). [Id. at 505-06.] We concluded neither defendant established futility because they did not make a substantial showing they would have been granted a handgun carry permit but for the justifiable need requirement. | 3 | 3 |
Bruce Ellison v. American Board of Orthopaedicgreen2 sentences2025Bd. of Orthopaedic Surgery, 11 F.4th 200, 206 (3d Cir. 2021)); see also Decastro, 682 F.3d at 164 ; Jackson-Bey v. Hanslmaier, 115 F.3d 1091, 1096 (2d Cir. 1997). 2025Bd. of Orthopaedic Surgery, 11 F.4th 200, 206 (3d Cir. 2021)); see also Decastro, A-3121-23 15 682 F.3d at 164 ; Jackson-Bey v. Hanslmaier, 115 F.3d 1091, 1096 (2d Cir. 1997). [Id. at 505-06.] We concluded neither defendant established futility because they did not make a substantial showing they would have been granted a handgun carry permit but for the justifiable need requirement. | 3 | 3 |
Kinsella v. Kinsellagreen1 sentence2026See New Jersey Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. R.L.M., 236 N.J. 123, 146 (2018) ("In a termination of parental rights trial, the evidence often takes the form of expert opinion testimony by psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health professionals."); Kinsella v. Kinsella, 150 N.J. 276, 318 (1997) ("In implementing the 'best-interest-of-the-child' standard, courts rely heavily on the expertise of psychologists and other mental health professionals."). | 1 | 1 |
N.J. Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. R.L.M. (In re R.A.J.)green1 sentence2026See New Jersey Div. of Child Prot. & Permanency v. R.L.M., 236 N.J. 123, 146 (2018) ("In a termination of parental rights trial, the evidence often takes the form of expert opinion testimony by psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health professionals."); Kinsella v. Kinsella, 150 N.J. 276, 318 (1997) ("In implementing the 'best-interest-of-the-child' standard, courts rely heavily on the expertise of psychologists and other mental health professionals."). | 1 | 1 |
Painewebber Incorporated v. Mohamad S. Elahi, Kokab Moarefi Elahi and Maryam Elahigreen2 sentences1997The essential rationale for this rule is that “where the parties have clearly agreed to arbitrate the subject of the underlying dispute between them, ... it is unlikely that they intended other issues related to the dispute, such as the timeliness of the submission of the claim, to affect the ‘arbitrability’ of the dispute.” PaineWebber, Inc. v. Elahi, supra, 87 F.3d at 599. 1997Moreover, “ ‘the fact that something is a condition precedent to arbitration does not make it any less a procedural question’ to be determined by the arbitrator.” Id. at 600-01 n. 12 (quoting Local 285, Sen. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
County of Morris v. Fauver
green
1 sentence2011That is, the statute provides that parties “shall” inform the State “of any situation or occurrence which may potentially result in the submission of a claim against the State.” Ibid. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Foti v. Johnson
neutral
1 sentence1994We do not, as in Foti v. Johnson, supra, 269 N.J. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Hart v. Eyck
green
1 sentence1828In Newland v. Douglass, 2 Johns. 62 , the court says : a court of equity may relieve against the partiality or corruption of arbitrators, but there is no such remedy at law, unless the submission is by rule of court. | 1 | 1828–1828 |
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.