7 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1985–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Perlman v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2020Id. at 397 (quoting Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 15 (1918); other citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
In the Matter of Garciagreen1 sentence2011See State v. Rodriguez, 195 N.J. 165, 173 , 949 A. 2d 197 (2008). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rodriguezgreen1 sentence2011See State v. Rodriguez, 195 N.J. 165, 173 , 949 A. 2d 197 (2008). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lj v. Jb
green
2 sentences2001State v. Pavin, 202 N.J.Super. 255, 260-61 , 494 A. 2d 834 (App.Div.1985) (noting that "[t]he burden of proof is on the person asserting the privilege to show that the consultation was a professional one"); L.J. v. J.B., 150 N.J.Super. 373, 377 , 375 A. 2d 1202 (App.Div.), certif. denied sub nom. 2001State v. Pavin, 202 N.J.Super. 255, 260-61 , 494 A. 2d 834 (App.Div.1985) (noting that "[t]he burden of proof is on the person asserting the privilege to show that the consultation was a professional one"); L.J. v. J.B., 150 N.J.Super. 373, 377 , 375 A. 2d 1202 (App.Div.), certif. denied sub nom. | 3 | 1985–2001 |
Fisher v. United States
green
1 sentence2020Id. at 397 (quoting Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 15 (1918); other citations omitted). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Kelly
green
2 sentences2008The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm; nor is it justifiable if: (a) The actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or (b) The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from an 2008The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm; nor is it justifiable if: (a) The actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or (b) The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from an | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Peper v. Princeton University Board of Trustees
green
1 sentence2001Jacobson v. Balle, 75 N.J. 24 , 379 A. 2d 255 (1977) (noting that "the sine qua non of the privilege is that the client has consulted the lawyer in the latter's capacity as an attorney"); State v. Blacknall, 335 N.J.Super. 52, 56 , 760 A. 2d 1151 (Law Div.2000). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Wiggins
green
1 sentence2001Jacobson v. Balle, 75 N.J. 24 , 379 A. 2d 255 (1977) (noting that "the sine qua non of the privilege is that the client has consulted the lawyer in the latter's capacity as an attorney"); State v. Blacknall, 335 N.J.Super. 52, 56 , 760 A. 2d 1151 (Law Div.2000). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Blacknall
green
2 sentences2001Jacobson v. Balle, 75 N.J. 24 , 379 A. 2d 255 (1977) (noting that "the sine qua non of the privilege is that the client has consulted the lawyer in the latter's capacity as an attorney"); State v. Blacknall, 335 N.J.Super. 52, 56 , 760 A. 2d 1151 (Law Div.2000). 2001Jacobson v. Balle, 75 N.J. 24 , 379 A. 2d 255 (1977) (noting that "the sine qua non of the privilege is that the client has consulted the lawyer in the latter's capacity as an attorney"); State v. Blacknall, 335 N.J.Super. 52, 56 , 760 A. 2d 1151 (Law Div.2000). | 1 | 2001–2001 |
State v. Pavin
green
2 sentences2001State v. Pavin, 202 N.J.Super. 255, 260-61 , 494 A. 2d 834 (App.Div.1985) (noting that "[t]he burden of proof is on the person asserting the privilege to show that the consultation was a professional one"); L.J. v. J.B., 150 N.J.Super. 373, 377 , 375 A. 2d 1202 (App.Div.), certif. denied sub nom. 2001State v. Pavin, 202 N.J.Super. 255, 260-61 , 494 A. 2d 834 (App.Div.1985) (noting that "[t]he burden of proof is on the person asserting the privilege to show that the consultation was a professional one"); L.J. v. J.B., 150 N.J.Super. 373, 377 , 375 A. 2d 1202 (App.Div.), certif. denied sub nom. | 1 | 2001–2001 |
United States v. Doe
green
2 sentences1986United States v. Doe, supra, 465 U.S. at 613-14 , 104 S.Ct. at 1242-43 , 79 L.Ed.2d at 560-61 . 1986United States v. Doe, supra, 465 U.S. at 613-14 , 104 S.Ct. at 1242-43 , 79 L.Ed.2d at 560-61 . | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.