7 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
J.F. v. B.K.green1 sentence2025Our Supreme Court has noted, "[i]t constitutes a fundamental violation of due process to convert a hearing on a complaint alleging one act of domestic violence into a hearing on other acts of domestic violence which are not even alleged in the complaint." H.E.S., 175 N.J. at 325 (alteration in original) (quoting J.F. v. B.K., 308 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Hes v. Jcsgreen1 sentence2025Our Supreme Court has noted, "[i]t constitutes a fundamental violation of due process to convert a hearing on a complaint alleging one act of domestic violence into a hearing on other acts of domestic violence which are not even alleged in the complaint." H.E.S., 175 N.J. at 325 (alteration in original) (quoting J.F. v. B.K., 308 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Interchemical Corp. v. Uncas Printing & Fin. Co.green1 sentence2021By contrast, in Interchemical Corp. v. Uncas Printing & Finishing Co., 39 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. Holland
green
1 sentence2021With respect to the trial court's conclusion that the search warrant can be sustained based on information from sources independent of the canine sniff, the State acknowledges the court did not consider and make findings with respect to two of the three elements that must be established by clear and convincing evidence to invoke the independent source exception to the exclusionary rule under State v. Holland, 176 N.J. 344 (2002). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Kelly
green
2 sentences2006If, however, the State does establish beyond reasonable doubt that the statements were voluntary, and the trial judge so determines, then the defendant's conviction may stand. [ State v. Kelly, supra, 61 N.J. at 294 , 294 A. 2d 41 (citations omitted).] We are thus satisfied that the remedy here is to remand the matter for a new hearing to determine voluntariness. 2006If, however, the State does establish beyond reasonable doubt that the statements were voluntary, and the trial judge so determines, then the defendant's conviction may stand. [ State v. Kelly, supra, 61 N.J. at 294 , 294 A. 2d 41 (citations omitted).] We are thus satisfied that the remedy here is to remand the matter for a new hearing to determine voluntariness. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
LOCAL 207 v. Borough of Hillsdale
green
2 sentences1994The Appellate Division reversed, 263 N.J.Super. 163 , 622 A.2d 872 (1993), vacating the award and remanding the matter for a new hearing before a new arbitrator. 1994The Appellate Division reversed, 263 N.J.Super. 163 , 622 A.2d 872 (1993), vacating the award and remanding the matter for a new hearing before a new arbitrator. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Harper-Lawrence v. United Merchants and Manufacturers
neutral
1 sentence1994We granted Local 207’s petition for certification, 134 N.J. 478 , 634 A.2d 525 (1993), and now affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further arbitration. -I- This case arises from a salary dispute between a municipality and its police department, but its resolution inevitably will affect the public. | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Williamson
green
2 sentences1994The facts of the case are set forth in the opinion of the Appellate Division, 270 N.J.Super. 318 , 637 A.2d 195 (1994). 1994The facts of the case are set forth in the opinion of the Appellate Division, 270 N.J.Super. 318 , 637 A.2d 195 (1994). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
State v. Fields
green
2 sentences1979Thus, we are constrained to reverse and remand this matter for a new hearing in accordance with the standard of "clear and convincing evidence." Accordingly, the order denying defendant's application for a conditional release is reversed and the matter remanded to the trial court for a new periodic review hearing (to which defendant would be entitled in any event on or before January 9, 1980 under R. 4:74-7(f)(3)), in accordance with the standard of proof established by the United States Supreme Court in Addington v. Texas, supra , and the guidelines enunciated by our Supreme Court in State v. 1979We emphasize that "[t]he final decision on the need for and appropriate extent of restrictions on the committee's [defendant's] liberty is for the court, not the psychiatrists." State v. Fields, supra, 77 N.J. at 308 , emphasis in original. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.