Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2026 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lonegan v. Stategreen2 sentences2015See Lonegan II, supra, 176 N.J. at 13-14 , 819 A.2d 395 ; Lonegan I, supra, 174 N.J. at 462-63 , 809 A.2d 91 . 2015See Lonegan II, supra, 176 N.J. at 13-14 , 819 A.2d 395 ; Lonegan I, supra, 174 N.J. at 462-63 , 809 A.2d 91 . | 2 | 2 |
Silver v. Silvergreen1 sentence2026See Silver, 387 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Green v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2017The animating principle underlying the Double Jeopardy Clause is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty. [Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 , 187- 88, 78 S. Ct. 221, 223 , 2 L. 2017The animating principle underlying the Double Jeopardy Clause is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty. [Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 , 187- 88, 78 S. Ct. 221, 223 , 2 L. | 1 | 1 |
State v. DeLucagreen2 sentences2017See De Luca, supra, 108 N.J. at 102 , 527 A.2d 1355 . 2017See De Luca, supra, 108 N.J. at 102 , 527 A.2d 1355 . | 1 | 1 |
Robertson v. Hackensack Trust Co.green2 sentences2011As indicated by this Court's often-quoted rationale, truth was the justifying principle for the admission of res gestae evidence: [T]he admissibility of the proofs as res gestae has as its justifying principle that truth, like the Master's robe, is of one piece, without seam, woven from the top throughout, that each fact has its inseparable attributes and its kindred facts materially affecting its character, and that the reproduction of a scene with its multiple incidents, each created naturally and without artificiality and not too distant in point of time, will by very quality and texture te 2011As indicated by this Court's often-quoted rationale, truth was the justifying principle for the admission of res gestae evidence: [T]he admissibility of the proofs as res gestae has as its justifying principle that truth, like the Master's robe, is of one piece, without seam, woven from the top throughout, that each fact has its inseparable attributes and its kindred facts materially affecting its character, and that the reproduction of a scene with its multiple incidents, each created naturally and without artificiality and not too distant in point of time, will by very quality and texture te | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lonegan v. State
green
2 sentences2015See Lonegan II, supra, 176 N.J. at 13-14 , 819 A.2d 395 ; Lonegan I, supra, 174 N.J. at 462-63 , 809 A.2d 91 . 2015See Lonegan II, supra, 176 N.J. at 13-14 , 819 A.2d 395 ; Lonegan I, supra, 174 N.J. at 462-63 , 809 A.2d 91 . | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Hunter v. State of New Jersey
green
2 sentences2011See, e.g., Robertson, supra, 1 N.J. at 312 , 63 A. 2d 515 ; Hunter, supra, 40 N.J.L. at 538-39 . 2011See, e.g., Robertson, supra, 1 N.J. at 312 , 63 A. 2d 515 ; Hunter, supra, 40 N.J.L. at 538-39 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Connally v. Georgia
green
2 sentences2004The situation, again, is one which offers “a possible temptation to the average man as a judge ... or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused.” It is, in other words, another situation where the defendant is subjected to what surely is judicial action by an officer of a court who has “a direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest” in his conclusion to issue or to deny the warrant. [Id. at 250, 97 S.Ct. at 548 , 50 L.Ed.2d at 448 .] In Marshall , however, the Court concluded that the animating principle of Tumey, Ward and Connall 2004The situation, again, is one which offers “a possible temptation to the average man as a judge ... or which might lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true between the State and the accused.” It is, in other words, another situation where the defendant is subjected to what surely is judicial action by an officer of a court who has “a direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest” in his conclusion to issue or to deny the warrant. [Id. at 250, 97 S.Ct. at 548 , 50 L.Ed.2d at 448 .] In Marshall , however, the Court concluded that the animating principle of Tumey, Ward and Connall | 1 | 2004–2004 |
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.