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 2 courts 1997–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Doegreen2 sentences1997See Roberts, supra, 756 F.Supp. at 901 (finding of probable cause to believe defendant had raped victim resulted in finding of probable cause to believe that defendant had exposed victim “to his sexual fluids — a known method of HIV transmission”); Johnetta J., supra, 267 Cal.Rptr. at 669 (upholding constitutionality of statute allowing HIV testing “[i]f the court finds that probable cause exists to believe that a possible transfer of blood, saliva, semen or other bodily fluid took place between the defendant” and the victim); People v. J.G., 171 Misc.2d 440 , 655 N.Y.S.2d 783, 787 (Sup.Ct.199 1997See Roberts, supra, 756 F.Supp. at 901 (finding of probable cause to believe defendant had raped victim resulted in finding of probable cause to believe that defendant had exposed victim “to his sexual fluids — a known method of HIV transmission”); Johnetta J., supra, 267 Cal.Rptr. at 669 (upholding constitutionality of statute allowing HIV testing “[i]f the court finds that probable cause exists to believe that a possible transfer of blood, saliva, semen or other bodily fluid took place between the defendant” and the victim); People v. J.G., 171 Misc.2d 440 , 655 N.Y.S.2d 783, 787 (Sup.Ct.199 | 2 | 2 |
People v. J. G.green2 sentences1997See Roberts, supra, 756 F.Supp. at 901 (finding of probable cause to believe defendant had raped victim resulted in finding of probable cause to believe that defendant had exposed victim “to his sexual fluids — a known method of HIV transmission”); Johnetta J., supra, 267 Cal.Rptr. at 669 (upholding constitutionality of statute allowing HIV testing “[i]f the court finds that probable cause exists to believe that a possible transfer of blood, saliva, semen or other bodily fluid took place between the defendant” and the victim); People v. J.G., 171 Misc.2d 440 , 655 N.Y.S.2d 783, 787 (Sup.Ct.199 1997See Roberts, supra, 756 F.Supp. at 901 (finding of probable cause to believe defendant had raped victim resulted in finding of probable cause to believe that defendant had exposed victim “to his sexual fluids — a known method of HIV transmission”); Johnetta J., supra, 267 Cal.Rptr. at 669 (upholding constitutionality of statute allowing HIV testing “[i]f the court finds that probable cause exists to believe that a possible transfer of blood, saliva, semen or other bodily fluid took place between the defendant” and the victim); People v. J.G., 171 Misc.2d 440 , 655 N.Y.S.2d 783, 787 (Sup.Ct.199 | 2 | 2 |
Government of the Virgin Islands v. Robertsgreen2 sentences1997Even though the survivor could not rely on a single negative test result to completely eliminate the risk of a false-negative result, this might provide substantial relief to survivors who experienced serious side effects. [Gostin, supra, 271 JAMA at 1439, 1441.] See also Roberts, supra, 756 F.Supp. at 903 (observing that “[t]he status of the potential source is also an ‘important factor’ in deciding whether a patient should subject herself to experimental prophylactic courses of treatment, such as the pre-seropositive intake of azidothymidine (AZT)”); Johnetta J., supra, 267 Cal. Rptr. at 672 1997Even though the survivor could not rely on a single negative test result to completely eliminate the risk of a false-negative result, this might provide substantial relief to survivors who experienced serious side effects. [Gostin, supra, 271 JAMA at 1439, 1441.] See also Roberts, supra, 756 F.Supp. at 903 (observing that “[t]he status of the potential source is also an ‘important factor’ in deciding whether a patient should subject herself to experimental prophylactic courses of treatment, such as the pre-seropositive intake of azidothymidine (AZT)”); Johnetta J., supra, 267 Cal. Rptr. at 672 | 2 | 2 |
State v. Parrgreen2 sentences1997See Roberts, supra, 756 F.Supp. at 901 (finding of probable cause to believe defendant had raped victim resulted in finding of probable cause to believe that defendant had exposed victim “to his sexual fluids — a known method of HIV transmission”); Johnetta J., supra, 267 Cal.Rptr. at 669 (upholding constitutionality of statute allowing HIV testing “[i]f the court finds that probable cause exists to believe that a possible transfer of blood, saliva, semen or other bodily fluid took place between the defendant” and the victim); People v. J.G., 171 Misc.2d 440 , 655 N.Y.S.2d 783, 787 (Sup.Ct.199 1997See Roberts, supra, 756 F.Supp. at 901 (finding of probable cause to believe defendant had raped victim resulted in finding of probable cause to believe that defendant had exposed victim “to his sexual fluids — a known method of HIV transmission”); Johnetta J., supra, 267 Cal.Rptr. at 669 (upholding constitutionality of statute allowing HIV testing “[i]f the court finds that probable cause exists to believe that a possible transfer of blood, saliva, semen or other bodily fluid took place between the defendant” and the victim); People v. J.G., 171 Misc.2d 440 , 655 N.Y.S.2d 783, 787 (Sup.Ct.199 | 2 | 2 |
Johnetta J. v. Municipal Courtgreen2 sentences1997Even though the survivor could not rely on a single negative test result to completely eliminate the risk of a false-negative result, this might provide substantial relief to survivors who experienced serious side effects. [Gostin, supra, 271 JAMA at 1439, 1441.] See also Roberts, supra, 756 F.Supp. at 903 (observing that “[t]he status of the potential source is also an ‘important factor’ in deciding whether a patient should subject herself to experimental prophylactic courses of treatment, such as the pre-seropositive intake of azidothymidine (AZT)”); Johnetta J., supra, 267 Cal. Rptr. at 672 1997See Roberts, supra, 756 F.Supp. at 901 (finding of probable cause to believe defendant had raped victim resulted in finding of probable cause to believe that defendant had exposed victim “to his sexual fluids — a known method of HIV transmission”); Johnetta J., supra, 267 Cal.Rptr. at 669 (upholding constitutionality of statute allowing HIV testing “[i]f the court finds that probable cause exists to believe that a possible transfer of blood, saliva, semen or other bodily fluid took place between the defendant” and the victim); People v. J.G., 171 Misc.2d 440 , 655 N.Y.S.2d 783, 787 (Sup.Ct.199 | 2 | 2 |
Behringer Est. v. Princeton Med. Ctr.green1 sentence2017Behringer, supra, 249 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
King v. Sullivangreen2 sentences2003See also Poveromo-Spring v. Exxon Corp., 968 F.Supp. 219, 228 (D.N.J.1997) (finding that the disclosure of a misread HIV test result may give rise to an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, although dismissing the claim on other grounds); King v. Sullivan, 961 S.W. 2d 287, 288-89 (Tex.App.1997) (holding that the statute of limitations did not bar a malpractice claim where a doctor misdiagnosed the patient with an HIV infection and then revealed the diagnosis to the patient's family members, even though the patient promptly obtained retesting that proved that she was not HIV 2003See also Poveromo-Spring v. Exxon Corp., 968 F.Supp. 219, 228 (D.N.J.1997) (finding that the disclosure of a misread HIV test result may give rise to an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, although dismissing the claim on other grounds); King v. Sullivan, 961 S.W. 2d 287, 288-89 (Tex.App.1997) (holding that the statute of limitations did not bar a malpractice claim where a doctor misdiagnosed the patient with an HIV infection and then revealed the diagnosis to the patient's family members, even though the patient promptly obtained retesting that proved that she was not HIV | 1 | 1 |
Ricky Baker v. David Alan Dorfmangreen1 sentence2003Similarly, in Baker v. Dorfman, 239 F. 3d 415, 421 (2d Cir.2000), the Second Circuit, relying on New York law, held that the misdiagnosis of a false positive HIV test result as positive can give rise to a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress. | 1 | 1 |
Poveromo-Spring v. Exxon Corp.green2 sentences2003See also Poveromo-Spring v. Exxon Corp., 968 F.Supp. 219, 228 (D.N.J.1997) (finding that the disclosure of a misread HIV test result may give rise to an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, although dismissing the claim on other grounds); King v. Sullivan, 961 S.W. 2d 287, 288-89 (Tex.App.1997) (holding that the statute of limitations did not bar a malpractice claim where a doctor misdiagnosed the patient with an HIV infection and then revealed the diagnosis to the patient's family members, even though the patient promptly obtained retesting that proved that she was not HIV 2003See also Poveromo-Spring v. Exxon Corp., 968 F.Supp. 219, 228 (D.N.J.1997) (finding that the disclosure of a misread HIV test result may give rise to an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, although dismissing the claim on other grounds); King v. Sullivan, 961 S.W. 2d 287, 288-89 (Tex.App.1997) (holding that the statute of limitations did not bar a malpractice claim where a doctor misdiagnosed the patient with an HIV infection and then revealed the diagnosis to the patient's family members, even though the patient promptly obtained retesting that proved that she was not HIV | 1 | 1 |
Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.green2 sentences1997See Skinner, supra, 489 U.S. at 616, 109 S.Ct. at 1413 , 103 L.Ed. 2d at 659 (stating that in addition to initial physical intrusion, "[t]he ensuing chemical analysis of the sample to obtain physiological data is a further invasion of the tested [individual's] privacy interests"); see also Lawrence O. 1997See Skinner, supra, 489 U.S. at 616, 109 S.Ct. at 1413 , 103 L.Ed. 2d at 659 (stating that in addition to initial physical intrusion, "[t]he ensuing chemical analysis of the sample to obtain physiological data is a further invasion of the tested [individual's] privacy interests"); see also Lawrence O. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
CW v. Cooper Health System
green
1 sentence2019In C.W., the court applied a similar principle and held a physician who failed to warn his patient of a positive HIV test owed a duty to third parties threatened by his patient's health status. 388 N.J. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State, in Interest of Jg
green
2 sentences2007Id. at 578-79, 701 A.2d 1260 . 2007Id. at 578-79, 701 A.2d 1260 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
MacKie v. Chizmar
green
1 sentence2006Id. at 1203 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
De Milio v. Schrager
green
2 sentences2003Plaintiff raised no challenge on either appeal to the pretrial dismissal of the defendants other than Arts and Raritan Bay. [2] At the request of the parties, the trial judge also asked the jury whether "defendants prove[d] by a preponderance of the credible evidence that plaintiff ... failed to bring his HIV test results to Robert Wood Johnson Medical Center" and, if so, the "percentage of [plaintiff's] damages ... proximately caused by this failure." The question related to the issue of "diminution or mitigation of damage," "not comparative fault." The jury answered the question in the negat 2003Plaintiff raised no challenge on either appeal to the pretrial dismissal of the defendants other than Arts and Raritan Bay. [2] At the request of the parties, the trial judge also asked the jury whether "defendants prove[d] by a preponderance of the credible evidence that plaintiff ... failed to bring his HIV test results to Robert Wood Johnson Medical Center" and, if so, the "percentage of [plaintiff's] damages ... proximately caused by this failure." The question related to the issue of "diminution or mitigation of damage," "not comparative fault." The jury answered the question in the negat | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Schmerber v. California
green
2 sentences1997Although blood sampling may be a relatively routine medical *580 procedure to which most people are accustomed, [4] Schmerber, supra, 384 U.S. at 771 , 86 S.Ct. at 1836 , 16 L.Ed. 2d at 920 , the subsequent HIV analysis and nonconsensual disclosure is a further, more intrusive invasion. 1997Although blood sampling may be a relatively routine medical *580 procedure to which most people are accustomed, [4] Schmerber, supra, 384 U.S. at 771 , 86 S.Ct. at 1836 , 16 L.Ed. 2d at 920 , the subsequent HIV analysis and nonconsensual disclosure is a further, more intrusive invasion. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
New Jersey Transit PBA Local 304 v. New Jersey Transit Corp.
green
1 sentence1997HIV test results are required to be kept confidential (with certain limited exceptions, see infra at 587-588, 701 A.2d at 1276 ). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.