7 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1965–2025 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Robert Cengr v. Fusibond Piping Systems, Inc.green1 sentence2008Some federal courts have used this schedule to determine what constitutes a "reasonable and necessary" cost of a deposition transcript for purposes of taxing litigation costs pursuant to Rule 54, see, e.g., Cengr v. Fusibond Piping Sys., Inc., 135 F. 3d 445, 455-56 (7th Cir.1998), and at least one federal district court has adopted a local rule which provides that in making an award under Rule 54, the costs of a deposition transcript "shall not exceed the regular copy rate as established by the Judicial Conference of the United States and in effect at the time the transcript or deposition was | 1 | 1 |
Earleen Smith v. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Appeal of Deborah Spector and Ellyn Hershmangreen1 sentence1989See, e.g., Smith v. Bowen, 815 F.2d 1152, 1156 (7th Cir.1987) (“The Northern District of Illinois had adopted a local rule imposing a 90-day time limit on the filing of attorneys’ fee petitions in civil proceedings. | 1 | 1 |
Amico v. New Castle Countygreen1 sentence1989See N.D.Ill.Local Rule 46”); Obin v. District No. 9 of Int’l Ass’n, supra, 651 F.2d at 583 (suggesting “that district courts adopt a uniform rule requiring the filing of a claim for attorney’s fees within twenty-one days after entry of judgment); Amico v. New Castle County, 654 F.Supp. 982, 991 (D.Del.1987) (Local Rules of Civil Practice for the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware requires attorney’s fee motions to be filed within twenty-one days after time of appeal has expired or after receipt of the mandate of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Fulcomergreen1 sentence1979One was to terminate the impropriety of having the board act as investigator, prosecutor and judge at the same time: *601 * * * The second and no less important purpose was to remove the trial of such cases from the publicity attendant on the local hearing which "tears the community apart" and "disrupts the orderly conduct of local school affairs." See Statements, supra. [ In re Fulcomer, 93 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
County of Essex v. Civil Service Commissiongreen1 sentence1965County of Essex v. Civil Service Commission, 98 N.J.L. 671, 675 ( Sup. Ct. 1923)." We are satisfied that in the instant case the Commission considered the matter de novo. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. California
green
1 sentence2025Miller, 413 U.S. at 30 . | 1 | 2025–2025 |
King v. Ryan
green
1 sentence2022Id. at 412 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Warren
green
2 sentences1990We have disapproved of local rules of sentencing, see State v. Warren, 115 N.J. 433 , 558 A.2d 1312 (1989), but we have only anecdotal evidence of any local rule here. 1990We have disapproved of local rules of sentencing, see State v. Warren, 115 N.J. 433 , 558 A.2d 1312 (1989), but we have only anecdotal evidence of any local rule here. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Zentek Corp. v. Internal Revenue Service
green
1 sentence1989In Zentek v. IRS, supra, 596 F.Supp. at 325-26 , the court found that an application for attorney’s fees under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(4)(E) should be governed by White and the local rule established under White . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Town of West New York v. Bock
green
1 sentence1965In Town of West New York v. Bock, 38 N.J. 500 (1962), the Supreme Court in a footnote appearing at page 507 said: "An appeal to the Commission from municipal action must be heard de novo and determined only on evidence presented anew to it. [Citing the statute and cases.] The testimony taken at the local hearing has no place before the Commission and is not properly reviewable. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
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.