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.
7 New Jersey opinions name it 1 courts 1971–2018 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. Phelpsgreen2 sentences1991This rule provides in part that [a] statement which would be admissible if made by the declarant at the hearing is admissible against a party if ... at the time the statement was made the party and the declarant were participating in a plan to commit a crime or civil wrong and the statement was made in furtherance of that plan. [Ibid.] The scope of the rule is demonstrated by State v. Phelps, 96 N.J. 500 , 476 A.2d 1199 (1984), which concluded that the existence of the conspiracy need only be demonstrated by a “fair preponderance” of the evidence to make such statements admissible ( 96 N.J. at 1991This rule provides in part that [a] statement which would be admissible if made by the declarant at the hearing is admissible against a party if ... at the time the statement was made the party and the declarant were participating in a plan to commit a crime or civil wrong and the statement was made in furtherance of that plan. [Ibid.] The scope of the rule is demonstrated by State v. Phelps, 96 N.J. 500 , 476 A.2d 1199 (1984), which concluded that the existence of the conspiracy need only be demonstrated by a “fair preponderance” of the evidence to make such statements admissible ( 96 N.J. at | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Spencer v. Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co.
green
1 sentence2018Nonetheless, Magnusson's statement that defense counsel was representing defendant under a commercial general liability policy was "only admissible under N.J.R.E. 803(b)(4) if it would have been admissible if made by the declarant at the hearing." Spencer, 156 N.J. at 461 (quoting Richard J. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Cabbell
green
1 sentence2016Id. at 331 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
United States v. James O. McCue Jr., United States of America v. James O. McCue Sr.
green
1 sentence1975U.S. v. McCue, 301 F. 2d 452 (2 Cir.1962); Paternostro v. U.S., supra .; U.S. v. Ratner, 464 F. 2d 101 (9 Cir.1972). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
Eldred J. Paternostro v. United States
green
1 sentence1975The Fifth Circuit, in Paternostro v U.S., 311 F. 2d 298 (5 Cir.1962), held: It is our feeling that the exculpatory no answer without any affirmative, aggressive or overt misstatement on the part of the defendant does not come within * * * § 1001. [at 309] "The Ninth Circuit in U.S. v. Bedore, 455 F. 2d 1109 (9 Cir.1972), added the following caveat: [§ 1001] was not intended to embrace oral unsworn statements unrelated to any claim of the declarant to a privilege from the United States or to a claim against the United States, given in response to inquiries initiated by a federal agency or depar | 1 | 1975–1975 |
United States v. Robert G. Bedore, A/K/A Bedord
green
1 sentence1975The Fifth Circuit, in Paternostro v U.S., 311 F. 2d 298 (5 Cir.1962), held: It is our feeling that the exculpatory no answer without any affirmative, aggressive or overt misstatement on the part of the defendant does not come within * * * § 1001. [at 309] "The Ninth Circuit in U.S. v. Bedore, 455 F. 2d 1109 (9 Cir.1972), added the following caveat: [§ 1001] was not intended to embrace oral unsworn statements unrelated to any claim of the declarant to a privilege from the United States or to a claim against the United States, given in response to inquiries initiated by a federal agency or depar | 1 | 1975–1975 |
United States v. Sam Ratner, (Two Cases)
green
1 sentence1975U.S. v. McCue, 301 F. 2d 452 (2 Cir.1962); Paternostro v. U.S., supra .; U.S. v. Ratner, 464 F. 2d 101 (9 Cir.1972). | 1 | 1975–1975 |
State v. Boiardo
green
1 sentence1971In State v. Boiardo, 111 N.J. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.