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 2015–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Little v. KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC.green2 sentences2018"A hallmark of the law of the case doctrine is its discretionary nature, calling upon the deciding judge to balance the value of judicial deference for the rulings of a coordinate judge against those factors that bear on the pursuit of justice and, particularly, the search for truth." Little v. KIA Motors Am., Inc., 425 N.J. 2018"A hallmark of the law of the case doctrine is its discretionary nature, calling upon the deciding judge to balance the value of judicial deference for the rulings of a coordinate judge against those factors that bear on the pursuit of justice and, particularly, the search for truth." *381 *552 Little v. KIA Motors Am., Inc. , 425 N.J. | 2 | 3 |
Lombardi v. Massogreen2 sentences2016See Lombardi v. Masso, 207 N.J. 517, 538-39 (2011) (noting "[a] hallmark of the law of the case doctrine is its discretionary nature, calling upon the deciding judge to balance the value of judicial deference for the rulings of a coordinate judge against those factors that bear on the pursuit of justice and, (continued) 23 A-4627-13T4 Defendants devote the greater part of their briefs to defending the unassailable proposition that excessive force claims are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388 , 109 S. Ct. 1865, 1867-68 2015The Attorney General submits that, although Appellate Division opinions are binding on the lower courts, they are not binding on other appellate panels; this principle is particularly true when the previous decision “is erroneous and results in injustice.” The Attorney General urges that the law of the case doctrine should be applied flexibly so as to “ ‘balance the value of judicial deference for the rulings of a coordinate judge against those factors that bear on the pursuit of justice and, particularly, the search for truth.’” (Quoting Lombardi v. Masso, 207 N.J. 517, 538-39 , 25 A.3d 1080 | 1 | 2 |
Hart v. City of Jersey Citygreen1 sentence2020Noting the doctrine's hallmark is its discretionary nature, requiring the deciding judge to balance respect for the rulings of a coordinate judge against those factors bearing on the pursuit of justice, Hart v. City of Jersey City, 308 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Graham v. Connorgreen2 sentences2016See Lombardi v. Masso, 207 N.J. 517, 538-39 (2011) (noting "[a] hallmark of the law of the case doctrine is its discretionary nature, calling upon the deciding judge to balance the value of judicial deference for the rulings of a coordinate judge against those factors that bear on the pursuit of justice and, (continued) 23 A-4627-13T4 Defendants devote the greater part of their briefs to defending the unassailable proposition that excessive force claims are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388 , 109 S. Ct. 1865, 1867-68 2016See Lombardi v. Masso, 207 N.J. 517, 538-39 (2011) (noting "[a] hallmark of the law of the case doctrine is its discretionary nature, calling upon the deciding judge to balance the value of judicial deference for the rulings of a coordinate judge against those factors that bear on the pursuit of justice and, (continued) 23 A-4627-13T4 Defendants devote the greater part of their briefs to defending the unassailable proposition that excessive force claims are analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 388 , 109 S. Ct. 1865, 1867-68 | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Jersey. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||