51 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1964–2026 24 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. S.S.green2 sentences2026After a testimonial hearing, we "defer to the trial court's factual findings because the trial court has the 'opportunity to hear and see the witnesses and to have the "feel" of the case, which a reviewing court cannot enjoy.'" State v. S.S., 229 N.J. 360, 374 (2017) (quoting State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224, 244 (2007)); see also State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 474 (1999) ("Appellate courts should defer to trial courts' credibility findings that are often influenced by matters such as observations of the character and demeanor of witnesses and common human experience that are not transmitted by 2026After a testimonial hearing, "appellate courts defer to the trial court's factual findings because the trial court has the 'opportunity to hear and see the witnesses and to have the "feel" of the case, which a reviewing court cannot enjoy.'" State v. S.S., 229 N.J. 360, 374 (2017) (quoting State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224 , 244 A-4138-24 11 (2007)). | 15 | 15 |
State v. Eldersgreen2 sentences2026After a testimonial hearing, we "defer to the trial court's factual findings because the trial court has the 'opportunity to hear and see the witnesses and to have the "feel" of the case, which a reviewing court cannot enjoy.'" State v. S.S., 229 N.J. 360, 374 (2017) (quoting State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224, 244 (2007)); see also State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 474 (1999) ("Appellate courts should defer to trial courts' credibility findings that are often influenced by matters such as observations of the character and demeanor of witnesses and common human experience that are not transmitted by 2026After a testimonial hearing, "appellate courts defer to the trial court's factual findings because the trial court has the 'opportunity to hear and see the witnesses and to have the "feel" of the case, which a reviewing court cannot enjoy.'" State v. S.S., 229 N.J. 360, 374 (2017) (quoting State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224 , 244 A-4138-24 11 (2007)). | 12 | 14 |
State v. Locurtogreen2 sentences2026After a testimonial hearing, we "defer to the trial court's factual findings because the trial court has the 'opportunity to hear and see the witnesses and to have the "feel" of the case, which a reviewing court cannot enjoy.'" State v. A-1867-24 10 S.S., 229 N.J. 360, 374 (2017) (quoting Elders, 192 N.J. at 244 ); see also State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 474 (1999) (recognizing deference is afforded because the court's findings "are often influenced by matters such as observations of the character and demeanor of witnesses and common human experience that are not transmitted by the record") ( 2026After a testimonial hearing, we "defer to the trial court's factual findings because the trial court has the 'opportunity to hear and see the witnesses and to have the "feel" of the case, which a reviewing court cannot enjoy.'" State v. S.S., 229 N.J. 360, 374 (2017) (quoting State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224, 244 (2007)); see also State v. Locurto, 157 N.J. 463, 474 (1999) ("Appellate courts should defer to trial courts' credibility findings that are often influenced by matters such as observations of the character and demeanor of witnesses and common human experience that are not transmitted by | 7 | 7 |
State v. Johnsongreen2 sentences2024State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 161 (1964); State v. S.S., 229 N.J. 360, 381 (2017). 2021Although the court's "'feel' of the case" and opportunity to assess credibility of live witnesses is a powerful reason to defer to findings made after a testimonial hearing, see State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 161 (1964), we defer to the trial court even when it bases its findings solely on its review of documentary or video evidence, State v. S.S., 229 N.J. 360, 381 (2017). | 4 | 4 |
State v. Parkergreen2 sentences2020See R. 3:5-7(c) (mandating a testimonial suppression hearing when material facts are in dispute); State v. Parker, 459 N.J. 2020See R. 3:5-7(c) (mandating a testimonial suppression hearing when material facts are in dispute); State v. Parker, 459 N.J. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Hewinsgreen2 sentences2025Super. 520 , 528 (App. Div. 2023) (second alteration in original) (quoting Hewins, 166 N.J. 2024Super. 318 , 332 (App. Div. 2021)). "'[F]actual allegations which are general and conclusory or based on suspicion and conjecture [do] not suffice' to establish a dispute of material facts warranting a testimonial hearing." Ibid. (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Hewins, 166 N.J. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Terrell Hubbard (073539)green2 sentences2026"A trial court's legal conclusions, 'however, and the consequences that flow from established facts,' are reviewed de novo." State v. Bullock, 253 N.J. 512 , 532 (2023) (quoting State v. Hubbard, 222 N.J. 249, 263 (2015)). 2020In reviewing a trial court's decision to admit or exclude a defendant's statement following a testimonial hearing, we "must defer to the factual findings of the trial court so long as those findings are supported by sufficient evidence in the record" and "disregard those findings" only when they "are clearly mistaken." State v. Hubbard, 222 N.J. 249, 262 (2015). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Suazogreen2 sentences2020See, e.g., State v. Lamb, 218 N.J. 300, 318 (2014); State v. Suazo, 133 N.J. 315, 320 (1993); Crumb, 307 N.J. 2020See, e.g., State v. Lamb, 218 N.J. 300, 318 (2014); State v. Suazo, 133 N.J. 315, 320 (1993); Crumb, 307 N.J. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Robinsongreen2 sentences2020State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1, 20 (2009). 2020State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1, 20 (2009). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Michael Lamb (071262)green2 sentences2020See, e.g., State v. Lamb, 218 N.J. 300, 318 (2014); State v. Suazo, 133 N.J. 315, 320 (1993); Crumb, 307 N.J. 2020See, e.g., State v. Lamb, 218 N.J. 300, 318 (2014); State v. Suazo, 133 N.J. 315, 320 (1993); Crumb, 307 N.J. | 2 | 2 |
United States v. John Doe, Edmund J. Devlingreen2 sentences1976“Even though evidence is not within a testimonial privilege, the due process clause protects against the use of excessive means to obtain it.” United States v. Doe, 405 F. 2d 436, 438 (2 Cir. 1968). 1976"Even though evidence is not within a testimonial privilege, the due process clause protects against the use of excessive means to obtain it." United States v. Doe, 405 F. 2d 436, 438 (2 Cir.1968). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Mark Dunbar (077839) (Monmouth and Statewidegreen2 sentences2022Accord State v. Dunbar, 229 N.J. 521, 538 (2017). 2022See Dunbar, 229 N.J. at 538 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Szemplered2 sentences2000In Szemple, supra, 135 N.J. at 422-23 , 640 A. 2d 817 , the Supreme Court held that N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-23, as it then existed, conferred "a testimonial privilege only on clergypersons[,]" and the penitent had no power to preclude disclosure. 2000In Szemple, supra, 135 N.J. at 422-23 , 640 A. 2d 817 , the Supreme Court held that N.J.S.A. 2A:84A-23, as it then existed, conferred "a testimonial privilege only on clergypersons[,]" and the penitent had no power to preclude disclosure. | 1 | 2 |
Stempler v. Speidellgreen2 sentences2003Stempler, supra, 100 N.J. at 373 , 495 A. 2d at 859 . 2003Stempler, supra, 100 N.J. at 373 , 495 A. 2d at 859 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Nashgreen1 sentence2025Super. 351, 373 (App. Div. 2014) (holding "where the court does not hold an evidentiary hearing, we may exercise de novo review over the factual inferences the trial court has drawn from the documentary record"); see also State v. Nash, 212 N.J. 518, 540-41 (2013) (recognizing appellate courts review any legal conclusions of the PCR court de novo). | 1 | 1 |
State of New Jersey v. Alice O'Donnellgreen1 sentence2025See State v. Gideon, 244 N.J. 538 , 551 (2021) (recognizing an appellate court reviews a PCR order following a testimonial hearing for an abuse of discretion); State v. O'Donnell, 435 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
State of New Jersey v. Horace Blakegreen1 sentence2021R. 2:11-3(e)(2); see State v. Blake, 444 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
K.A.F. v. D.L.M.green1 sentence2020Turning to the need for a plenary hearing, it is beyond peradventure that a testimonial hearing is necessary when a genuine issue exists as to a material fact. "[A] plenary hearing is particularly important when the submissions show there is a genuine and substantial factual dispute regarding the welfare of children." K.A.F. v. D.L.M., 437 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Schneckloth v. Bustamontegreen1 sentence2020See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 227 (1974) (stating that voluntariness of consent is a factual issue). | 1 | 1 |
Isaacson v. Isaacsongreen1 sentence2017Isaacson v. Isaacson, 348 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Walkergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Hague v. Williamsgreen2 sentences1991See generally Stempler v. Speidell, 100 N.J. 368, 374-383 , 495 A.2d 857 (1985) (discussing best method “to accord adequate recognition to the competing interests that have been identified”); Hague v. Williams, 37 N.J. 328, 336 , 181 A.2d 345 (1962) (stating that right of confidentiality is limited by “the supervening interest of society”). 1991See generally Stempler v. Speidell, 100 N.J. 368, 374-383 , 495 A.2d 857 (1985) (discussing best method “to accord adequate recognition to the competing interests that have been identified”); Hague v. Williams, 37 N.J. 328, 336 , 181 A.2d 345 (1962) (stating that right of confidentiality is limited by “the supervening interest of society”). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Branzburg v. Hayes
green
2 sentences1978The United States Supreme Court in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 , 92 S.Ct. 2646 , 33 L.Ed. 2d 626 (1972), effectively so decided: * * * We are asked to create another [privilege] by interpreting the First Amendment to grant newsmen a testimonial privilege that other citizens do not enjoy. 1978The United States Supreme Court in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 , 92 S.Ct. 2646 , 33 L.Ed. 2d 626 (1972), effectively so decided: * * * We are asked to create another [privilege] by interpreting the First Amendment to grant newsmen a testimonial privilege that other citizens do not enjoy. | 3 | 1972–1978 |
State v. Crumb
green
2 sentences2020See, e.g., State v. Lamb, 218 N.J. 300, 318 (2014); State v. Suazo, 133 N.J. 315, 320 (1993); Crumb, 307 N.J. 2020See, e.g., State v. Lamb, 218 N.J. 300, 318 (2014); State v. Suazo, 133 N.J. 315, 320 (1993); Crumb, 307 N.J. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State v. Kevin Gamble (071234)
green
2 sentences2019After a testimonial hearing, "appellate courts defer to the trial court's factual findings because the trial court has the 'opportunity to hear and see the witnesses and to have the "feel" of the case, which a reviewing court cannot enjoy.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224, 244 (2007)). 2018After a testimonial hearing, "appellate courts defer to the trial court's factual findings because the trial court has the 'opportunity to hear and see the witnesses and to A-2932-15T4 10 have the "feel" of the case, which a reviewing court cannot enjoy.'" Ibid. (quoting State v. Elders, 192 N.J. 224, 244 (2007)). | 2 | 2018–2019 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
1 sentence2026After conducting a testimonial hearing, the court 3 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Terry v. Ohio
green
1 sentence2020Defendant's reply brief alleged that when police approached his van, they had "absolutely no probable cause or reasonable suspicion that a crime ha[d] taken place or was about to take place . . . and conducted an illegal warrantless search without any exception to the warrant requirement being present." As to the clear plastic bag containing 133 white glassine envelopes of heroin that was detected in defendant's waistband during the pat-down for possible weapons, defendant contended: "The feel of 133 smal[l] packets of heroin in no way g[a]ve rise to an honest belief that [defendant] was in po | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Lewis v. Harris
green
2 sentences2013Id. at 448-49 , 908 A.2d 196 . 2013Id. at 448-49 , 908 A.2d 196 . | 1 | 2013–2013 |
Namet v. United States
green
2 sentences2007“First, some courts have indicated that error may be based upon a concept of prosecutorial misconduct, when the Government makes a conscious and flagrant attempt to build its case out of inferences arising from use of the testimonial privilege.” Id. at 186 , 83 S.Ct. at 1154-55 , 10 L.Ed.2d at 283 . 2007“First, some courts have indicated that error may be based upon a concept of prosecutorial misconduct, when the Government makes a conscious and flagrant attempt to build its case out of inferences arising from use of the testimonial privilege.” Id. at 186 , 83 S.Ct. at 1154-55 , 10 L.Ed.2d at 283 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Matter of DK
green
2 sentences2005R. 4:86-7 (“the court shall ... take oral testimony in open court”); In re D.K., 204 N.J.Super. 205, 227 , 497 A.2d 1298 (Ch.Div.1985). 2005R. 4:86-7 (“the court shall ... take oral testimony in open court”); In re D.K., 204 N.J.Super. 205, 227 , 497 A.2d 1298 (Ch.Div.1985). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Rozycki v. Peley
green
1 sentence2002Ibid. (citing Evid. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| Eaton v. Eaton neutral | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Frank v. Ivy Club neutral | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Nolan v. Lee Ho green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| In Re Bridge green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Zemel v. Rusk green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| United States v. Liddy green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Pell v. Procunier green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Houchins v. KQED, Inc. green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Zurcher v. Stanford Daily green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Zemel v. Rusk green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| State v. Jones green | 1 | 1978–1978 |
| Reina v. United States green | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.