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 1987–2022 3 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. Whitegreen2 sentences2016The Legislature created no exception from the Graves Act." Id. at 557 (quoting State v. White, 98 N.J. 122, 130 (1984)). 2001Where an accomplice has been found guilty of armed robbery, he is subject to the minimum imprisonment terms of the Graves Act. [Id. at 130, 484 A.2d 691 (footnote omitted).] Similarly, we hold that NERA applies to unarmed accomplices. | 2 | 2 |
In Re the Guardianship of K.H.O.green2 sentences2022In order to obtain parental termination, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) requires the Division prove by clear and convincing evidence the following four prongs: (1) The child's safety, health, or development has been or will continue to be endangered by the parental relationship; A-3330-20 6 (2) The parent is unwilling or unable to eliminate the harm facing the child or is unable or unwilling to provide a safe and stable home for the child and the delay of permanent placement will add to the harm; (3) The [D]ivision has made reasonable efforts to provide services to help the parent correct the circumst 2022See K.H.O., 161 N.J. at 347 (stating that "[t]he balance between parental rights and the State's interest in the welfare of children is achieved through the bests interests of the child standard," as noted in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15(c) and elaborated upon in N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a)). | 1 | 2 |
Danny Caicedo v. Fabian Caicedogreen1 sentence2021Caicedo v. Caicedo, 439 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 |
|---|---|---|
New Jersey Division of Youth & Family Services v. A.W.
green
1 sentence2022In order to obtain parental termination, N.J.S.A. 30:4C-15.1(a) requires the Division prove by clear and convincing evidence the following four prongs: (1) The child's safety, health, or development has been or will continue to be endangered by the parental relationship; A-3330-20 6 (2) The parent is unwilling or unable to eliminate the harm facing the child or is unable or unwilling to provide a safe and stable home for the child and the delay of permanent placement will add to the harm; (3) The [D]ivision has made reasonable efforts to provide services to help the parent correct the circumst | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Rumblin
green
1 sentence2016The Legislature created no exception from the Graves Act." Id. at 557 (quoting State v. White, 98 N.J. 122, 130 (1984)). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Cannon
green
2 sentences1994We held that when the Legislature explicitly mandates imprisonment, “this Court may not, as an ‘alternative,’ [through a court-administered program] order release.” Id. at 563 n. 9, 608 A.2d 341 . “[B]y ‘imprisonment’ the Legislature meant not simply the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment but service of the statutory sentence, conforming to the statutory mandate.” Id. at 565, 608 A.2d 341 . 1994We held that when the Legislature explicitly mandates imprisonment, “this Court may not, as an ‘alternative,’ [through a court-administered program] order release.” Id. at 563 n. 9, 608 A.2d 341 . “[B]y ‘imprisonment’ the Legislature meant not simply the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment but service of the statutory sentence, conforming to the statutory mandate.” Id. at 565, 608 A.2d 341 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Kreidler
green
1 sentence1987Conversely, it is our view that any other disposition would lead to the untenable conclusion that “the Legislature created a presumption of imprisonment for the most serious crimes in the Code, that can be satisfied by only a day of ‘imprisonment.’ ” State v. Kreidler, supra, 211 N.J.Super. at 279 . | 1 | 1987–1987 |
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.