57 New Jersey opinions name it 1 courts 1987–2026 21 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 |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washingtongreen2 sentences2026The court held defendant had not established a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel under the two- prong test established by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), and adopted by the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987). 2026He alleged PCR counsel was ineffective in failing: (1) to argue that the trial court failed to ensure that defendant was aware of and had the opportunity to review, evaluate, and accept his plea offer, (2) to argue that his trial counsel failed to ensure that defendant was aware of his maximum sentence exposure, and (3) to 3 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 694 (1984), sets forth a two- prong test a defendant must satisfy in a PCR claim. | 23 | 36 |
State v. Fritzgreen2 sentences2026The court held defendant had not established a prima facie case of ineffective assistance of counsel under the two- prong test established by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984), and adopted by the New Jersey Supreme Court in State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42 (1987). 2022We review a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the two- prong test established by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland, 466 U.S. at 667 , and subsequently adopted by our Supreme Court in State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987). | 19 | 23 |
State v. Preciosegreen2 sentences2022See Preciose, 129 N.J. at 463 ; see also State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987). 2022See Preciose, 129 N.J. at 463 ; see also State v. Fritz, 105 N.J. 42, 58 (1987). | 5 | 5 |
Ray v. Atlantic Richfield Co.green2 sentences1990See Ray v. Atlantic Richfield, 435 U.S. 151, 158 , 98 S.Ct. 988, 994 , 55 L.Ed.2d 179 (1978). 1990See Ray v. Atlantic Richfield, 435 U.S. 151, 158 , 98 S.Ct. 988, 994 , 55 L.Ed.2d 179 (1978). | 2 | 2 |
Massa v. Lainggreen1 sentence2024This two- prong test requires proof "by clear, definite, unequivocal and satisfactory evidence." Massa v. Laing, 160 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Gray v. Bradleygreen1 sentence2024Super. 443, 446-47 (App. Div. 1977) (quoting Gray v. Bradley, 1 N.J. 102, 104 (1948)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Allegrogreen1 sentence2024We find no error, much less plain error, warranting reversal. [Flagler, slip op. 40-41.] A-2180-20 19 If there was no error, then there can be no prejudice to satisfy the second prong of the Strickland/Fritz test because "[t]hat second prong . . . is an exacting standard" and "'[t]he error committed must be so serious as to undermine the court's confidence in the jury's verdict or the result reached.'" State v. Allegro, 193 N.J. 352, 367 (2008) (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Castagna, 187 N.J. 293, 315 (2006)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Castagnagreen1 sentence2024We find no error, much less plain error, warranting reversal. [Flagler, slip op. 40-41.] A-2180-20 19 If there was no error, then there can be no prejudice to satisfy the second prong of the Strickland/Fritz test because "[t]hat second prong . . . is an exacting standard" and "'[t]he error committed must be so serious as to undermine the court's confidence in the jury's verdict or the result reached.'" State v. Allegro, 193 N.J. 352, 367 (2008) (second alteration in original) (quoting State v. Castagna, 187 N.J. 293, 315 (2006)). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Beygreen1 sentence2024Based on this record, we find that the two- prong analysis articulated in [State v. Bey, 112 N.J. 45, 83-90 (1988)] was satisfied and the trial court acted within its discretion in questioning the jurors as a group. [State v. Feaster, 156 N.J. 1, 53-54 (1998)]. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Feastergreen1 sentence2024Based on this record, we find that the two- prong analysis articulated in [State v. Bey, 112 N.J. 45, 83-90 (1988)] was satisfied and the trial court acted within its discretion in questioning the jurors as a group. [State v. Feaster, 156 N.J. 1, 53-54 (1998)]. | 1 | 1 |
Martindale v. Sandvik, Inc.green1 sentence2024Martindale, 173 N.J. at 86-87, 92 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Senciongreen1 sentence2019To determine whether an expectation of privacy is protectable, federal courts "employ[] a two- prong test: first, a person must have exhibited an actual expectation of privacy, and second, the expectation must be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable or legitimate." State v. Sencion, 454 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Cummingsgreen1 sentence2017Ed. 2d at 698 . "[W]hen a petitioner claims his trial attorney inadequately investigated his case, he must assert the facts an investigation would have revealed, supported by affidavits or certifications based upon the personal knowledge of the affiant or the person making the certification." State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 353 (2013) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Megargelgreen2 sentences2017The court must be 'clearly convinced that the mitigating factors substantially outweigh the aggravating ones and that the interest of justice demand[s] a downgraded sentence.'" State v. Megargel, 143 N.J. 484, 496 (1996) (citing N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(f)(2)). "[T]he standard governing downgrading is high." Id. at 500 . 2017The court must be 'clearly convinced that the mitigating factors substantially outweigh the aggravating ones and that the interest of justice demand[s] a downgraded sentence.'" State v. Megargel, 143 N.J. 484, 496 (1996) (citing N.J.S.A. 2C:44-1(f)(2)). "[T]he standard governing downgrading is high." Id. at 500 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Oscar Porter (069223)green1 sentence2017Ed. 2d at 698 . "[W]hen a petitioner claims his trial attorney inadequately investigated his case, he must assert the facts an investigation would have revealed, supported by affidavits or certifications based upon the personal knowledge of the affiant or the person making the certification." State v. Porter, 216 N.J. 343, 353 (2013) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Cummings, 321 N.J. | 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. Martinez
green
1 sentence2024For the reasons that follow, we vacate the April 19, 2021 order and remand for the PCR judge to determine whether there is good cause for referral of defendant's second PCR to the Office of the Public Defender and to consider the contentions raised in defendant's second PCR petition, applying the two- prong test in Strickland.1 The facts leading to defendant's murder conviction are set forth in State v. Martinez, No. A-0395-15 (App. Div. May 15, 2017), certif. denied, 232 N.J. 159 (2018). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Fb v. Alg
green
1 sentence2020Ibid. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
North Bergen Rex Transport, Inc. v. Trailer Leasing Co.
green
2 sentences2018Under the two prong test established by the Court, "[t]he first prong requires that the litigant seeking fees establish that the 'lawsuit was causally related to securing the relief obtained; a fee award is justified if [the party's] efforts are a "necessary and important" factor in obtaining relief.'" Ibid. (alteration in original) (quoting N. Bergen Rex Transp., 158 N.J. at 570 ). 2018Under the two prong test established by the Court, "[t]he first prong requires that the litigant seeking fees establish that the 'lawsuit was causally related to securing the relief obtained; a fee award is justified if [the party's] efforts are a "necessary and important" factor in obtaining relief.'" Ibid. (alteration in original) (quoting N. Bergen Rex Transp., 158 N.J. at 570 ). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
In Re Probate of Will and Codicil of MacOol
green
1 sentence2017Absent either one of these two elements, a trier of fact can only speculate as to whether the proposed writing accurately reflects the decedent's final testamentary wishes. [Macool, supra, 416 N.J. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Silver v. Silver
green
1 sentence2016Applying the two- prong analysis we articulated in Silver v. Silver, 387 N.J. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Tp. of River Vale v. RJ Longo Const. Co.
green
2 sentences2002Longo Construction Co., 127 N.J.Super. 207, 215 , 316 A.2d 737 (Law Div.1974): There must, therefore, be applied two criteria in determining whether a specific noncompliance constitutes a substantial and hence nonwaivable irregularity — first, whether the effect of a waiver would be to deprive the municipality of its assurance that the contract will be entered into, performed and guaranteed according to its specified requirements, and second, whether it is of such a nature that its waiver would adversely affect competitive bidding by placing a bidder in a position of advantage over other bidde 2002Longo Construction Co., 127 N.J.Super. 207, 215 , 316 A.2d 737 (Law Div.1974): There must, therefore, be applied two criteria in determining whether a specific noncompliance constitutes a substantial and hence nonwaivable irregularity — first, whether the effect of a waiver would be to deprive the municipality of its assurance that the contract will be entered into, performed and guaranteed according to its specified requirements, and second, whether it is of such a nature that its waiver would adversely affect competitive bidding by placing a bidder in a position of advantage over other bidde | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Oswin v. Shaw
red
2 sentences2001Oswin, supra, 129 N.J. at 314 , 609 A. 2d 415 . 2001Oswin, supra, 129 N.J. at 314 , 609 A. 2d 415 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Coll v. Sherry
green
2 sentences1998Plaintiff must introduce evidence “showing there is a reasonable probability that his injuries will impair his future earning capacity, and sufficient factual matter upon which the quantum of diminishment can reasonably be determined----” Coll, supra, 29 N.J. at 176 , 148 A.2d 481 . 1998Plaintiff must introduce evidence “showing there is a reasonable probability that his injuries will impair his future earning capacity, and sufficient factual matter upon which the quantum of diminishment can reasonably be determined----” Coll, supra, 29 N.J. at 176 , 148 A.2d 481 . | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Perez v. Pantasote, Inc.
green
2 sentences1996Permanent partial disability is defined in the Worker's Compensation Act as follows: Disability permanent in quality and partial in character means a permanent impairment caused by a compensable accident or compensable occupational disease, based upon demonstrable objective medical evidence, which restricts the function of the body or of its members or organs; included in the criteria which shall be considered shall be whether there has been a lessening to a material degree of an employees's working ability. ... [ N.J.S.A. 34:15-36 (emphasis added).] In Perez v. Pantasote Inc., 95 N.J. 105 , 4 1996Permanent partial disability is defined in the Worker's Compensation Act as follows: Disability permanent in quality and partial in character means a permanent impairment caused by a compensable accident or compensable occupational disease, based upon demonstrable objective medical evidence, which restricts the function of the body or of its members or organs; included in the criteria which shall be considered shall be whether there has been a lessening to a material degree of an employees's working ability. ... [ N.J.S.A. 34:15-36 (emphasis added).] In Perez v. Pantasote Inc., 95 N.J. 105 , 4 | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Andre v. Union Tank Car Co., Inc.
neutral
2 sentences1990In Andre v. Union Tank Car Co., Inc., 213 N.J.Super. 51 , 516 A.2d 277 (Law Div.1985), aff’d per curiam 216 N.J.Super. 219 , 523 A.2d 278 (App.Div.1987), it was stated: To determine whether plaintiffs claim is in conflict with the federal scheme, a two prong test is employed. 1990In Andre v. Union Tank Car Co., Inc., 213 N.J.Super. 51 , 516 A.2d 277 (Law Div.1985), aff’d per curiam 216 N.J.Super. 219 , 523 A.2d 278 (App.Div.1987), it was stated: To determine whether plaintiffs claim is in conflict with the federal scheme, a two prong test is employed. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
In Re the Guardianship of Hayes
green
2 sentences1990In re Hayes, supra, 93 Wash. 2d 228 , 608 P. 2d at 641 . [ Id. 85 N.J. at 264-265 , 426 A. 2d 467 .] The Supreme Court stated that once the above information is obtained, a trial court must then apply a two prong test to *468 determine whether sterilization should be authorized. [4] First, "the trial judge must find that the individual lacks capacity to make a decision about sterilization and that the incapacity is not likely to change in the foreseeable future." [5] Id. at 265 , 426 A. 2d 467 . 1990In re Hayes, supra, 93 Wash. 2d 228 , 608 P. 2d at 641 . [ Id. 85 N.J. at 264-265 , 426 A. 2d 467 .] The Supreme Court stated that once the above information is obtained, a trial court must then apply a two prong test to *468 determine whether sterilization should be authorized. [4] First, "the trial judge must find that the individual lacks capacity to make a decision about sterilization and that the incapacity is not likely to change in the foreseeable future." [5] Id. at 265 , 426 A. 2d 467 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Andre v. Union Tank Car Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences1990In Andre v. Union Tank Car Co., Inc., 213 N.J.Super. 51 , 516 A.2d 277 (Law Div.1985), aff’d per curiam 216 N.J.Super. 219 , 523 A.2d 278 (App.Div.1987), it was stated: To determine whether plaintiffs claim is in conflict with the federal scheme, a two prong test is employed. 1990In Andre v. Union Tank Car Co., Inc., 213 N.J.Super. 51 , 516 A.2d 277 (Law Div.1985), aff’d per curiam 216 N.J.Super. 219 , 523 A.2d 278 (App.Div.1987), it was stated: To determine whether plaintiffs claim is in conflict with the federal scheme, a two prong test is employed. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
In Re Grady
green
2 sentences1990In re Hayes, supra, 93 Wash. 2d 228 , 608 P. 2d at 641 . [ Id. 85 N.J. at 264-265 , 426 A. 2d 467 .] The Supreme Court stated that once the above information is obtained, a trial court must then apply a two prong test to *468 determine whether sterilization should be authorized. [4] First, "the trial judge must find that the individual lacks capacity to make a decision about sterilization and that the incapacity is not likely to change in the foreseeable future." [5] Id. at 265 , 426 A. 2d 467 . 1990In re Hayes, supra, 93 Wash. 2d 228 , 608 P. 2d at 641 . [ Id. 85 N.J. at 264-265 , 426 A. 2d 467 .] The Supreme Court stated that once the above information is obtained, a trial court must then apply a two prong test to *468 determine whether sterilization should be authorized. [4] First, "the trial judge must find that the individual lacks capacity to make a decision about sterilization and that the incapacity is not likely to change in the foreseeable future." [5] Id. at 265 , 426 A. 2d 467 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.
green
1 sentence1988As noted by Judge O'Brien, in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed. 2d 674 (1984), reh. den. 467 U.S. 1267 , 104 S.Ct. 3562 , 82 L.Ed. 2d 864 (1984), the United States Supreme Court articulated a two prong test for evaluating whether a defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel: First, the defendant must show that counsel's performance was deficient. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.