7 New Jersey opinions name it 3 courts 1981–2025 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Reyesgreen2 sentences2006The standard for reviewing a claim that the evidence is insufficient to support a verdict was articulated by the Supreme Court in State v. Reyes, 50 N.J. 454, 459 , 236 A.2d 385 (1967): [Wjhether, viewing the State’s evidence in its entirety, be that evidence direct or circumstantial, and giving the State the benefit of all its favorable testimony as well as all of the favorable inferences which reasonably could be drawn therefrom, a reasonable jury could find guilt of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. 2006The standard for reviewing a claim that the evidence is insufficient to support a verdict was articulated by the Supreme Court in State v. Reyes, 50 N.J. 454, 459 , 236 A.2d 385 (1967): [Wjhether, viewing the State’s evidence in its entirety, be that evidence direct or circumstantial, and giving the State the benefit of all its favorable testimony as well as all of the favorable inferences which reasonably could be drawn therefrom, a reasonable jury could find guilt of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. | 1 | 2 |
SL Industries, Inc. v. American Motorists Insurancegreen1 sentence2025A. Dr. Hole argues a tortious interference claim "does not require an intention to cause the injury alleged." Rather, he asserts "the intent required in tortious interference claims is an intent to interfere." He relies on SL Industries v. American Motorists Insurance Co. for the proposition that a court reviewing whether a claim comes within the scope of an insurance policy must focus on the "insured's intent to cause the injury rather than on its intent to commit the act that resulted in the injury." 128 N.J. 188, 207 (1992). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Danielsgreen1 sentence2020Reviewing defendant's argument that the assistant prosecutor improperly vouched for W.B.'s credibility during summation for plain error because no objection was made, Daniels, 182 N.J. at 95 ("Under that standard, [this court] disregard[s] an error unless it is 'clearly capable of producing an unjust result.'" (quoting R. 2:10-2)), we determine it to be without sufficient merit to warrant discussion, R. 2:11-3(e)(2). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Morangreen1 sentence2014The judge commented only that defendant "should have been charged on this occasion with driving while suspended, but he 2 A-5501-12T1 wasn't."2 The judge did not consider the sentencing standards imposed in State v. Moran, 202 N.J. 311, 328-30 (2010) (setting standards to guide the discretion of judges imposing license suspensions under N.J.S.A. 39:5-31), or suggested in State v. Henry, 418 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Henrygreen1 sentence2014The judge commented only that defendant "should have been charged on this occasion with driving while suspended, but he 2 A-5501-12T1 wasn't."2 The judge did not consider the sentencing standards imposed in State v. Moran, 202 N.J. 311, 328-30 (2010) (setting standards to guide the discretion of judges imposing license suspensions under N.J.S.A. 39:5-31), or suggested in State v. Henry, 418 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 |
|---|---|---|
Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White
green
2 sentences2024Our Court elucidated the reviewing framework regarding the employer's adverse action is whether "a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse, which in this context means it well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination." Ibid. (internal quotations marks omitted) (quoting Burlington, 548 U.S. at 68 ). 2024Our Court elucidated the reviewing framework regarding the employer's adverse action is whether "a reasonable employee would have found the challenged action materially adverse, which in this context means it well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination." Ibid. (internal quotations marks omitted) (quoting Burlington, 548 U.S. at 68 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Brown
green
2 sentences1988Super. at 262 .] The standard for reviewing a claim that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's guilty verdict for an appellate court and a trial court in a judgment n.o.v. motion is: whether viewing the State's evidence in its entirety, be that evidence direct or circumstantial, and giving the State the benefit of all its favorable testimony as well as all of the favorable inferences which reasonably could be drawn therefrom, a reasonable jury could find guilt of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. [ State v. Reyes, 50 N.J. 454, 459 (1967).] In State v. Brown, 80 N.J. 587 (1979 1988Super. at 262 .] The standard for reviewing a claim that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdict for an appellate court and a trial court in a judgment n.o.v. motion is: whether viewing the State’s evidence in its entirety, be that evidence direct or circumstantial, and giving the State the benefit of all its favorable testimony as well as all of the favorable inferences which reasonably could be drawn therefrom, a reasonable jury could find guilt of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. [State v. Reyes, 50 N.J. 454, 459 (1967).] In State v. Brown, 80 N.J. 587 (1979) | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Harvey v. Essex County Board of Freeholders
green
2 sentences1981Freeholder Bd., 30 N.J. 381, 389 , 153 A.2d 10 (1959), the reviewing standard as follows: In deciding whether an act is general or special, it is what is excluded that is the determining factor and not what is included. 1981Freeholder Bd., 30 N.J. 381, 389 , 153 A.2d 10 (1959), the reviewing standard as follows: In deciding whether an act is general or special, it is what is excluded that is the determining factor and not what is included. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.