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 1997–2024 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Khalid Mohammed(075901)green1 sentence2020Ibid.; see also State v. Green, 239 N.J. 88 , 106 (2019) (stating that “[t]o guard against the risk of mugshot exposure,” enhanced identification practices would be required “going forward”); State v. Miles, 229 N.J. 83, 101 (2017) (“[G]oing forward, for offenses committed after the issuance of this opinion, we hold that the same - elements test will serve as the singular framework for determining wheth er two charges are in fact the same offense for purposes of double-jeopardy analysis.”); State v. Lunsford, 226 N.J. 129, 155 (2016) (directing that, “going 27 forward, the State must apply for | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gary Lunsford (075691)green1 sentence2020Ibid.; see also State v. Green, 239 N.J. 88 , 106 (2019) (stating that “[t]o guard against the risk of mugshot exposure,” enhanced identification practices would be required “going forward”); State v. Miles, 229 N.J. 83, 101 (2017) (“[G]oing forward, for offenses committed after the issuance of this opinion, we hold that the same - elements test will serve as the singular framework for determining wheth er two charges are in fact the same offense for purposes of double-jeopardy analysis.”); State v. Lunsford, 226 N.J. 129, 155 (2016) (directing that, “going 27 forward, the State must apply for | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hector Feliciano(074395)green1 sentence2020Ibid.; see also State v. Green, 239 N.J. 88 , 106 (2019) (stating that “[t]o guard against the risk of mugshot exposure,” enhanced identification practices would be required “going forward”); State v. Miles, 229 N.J. 83, 101 (2017) (“[G]oing forward, for offenses committed after the issuance of this opinion, we hold that the same - elements test will serve as the singular framework for determining wheth er two charges are in fact the same offense for purposes of double-jeopardy analysis.”); State v. Lunsford, 226 N.J. 129, 155 (2016) (directing that, “going 27 forward, the State must apply for | 1 | 1 |
State v. William L. Witt(074468)green1 sentence2020Ibid.; see also State v. Green, 239 N.J. 88 , 106 (2019) (stating that “[t]o guard against the risk of mugshot exposure,” enhanced identification practices would be required “going forward”); State v. Miles, 229 N.J. 83, 101 (2017) (“[G]oing forward, for offenses committed after the issuance of this opinion, we hold that the same - elements test will serve as the singular framework for determining wheth er two charges are in fact the same offense for purposes of double-jeopardy analysis.”); State v. Lunsford, 226 N.J. 129, 155 (2016) (directing that, “going 27 forward, the State must apply for | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rodney J. Miles a/k/a Jamal D. Allen (077035) (Camden County and Statewide)green1 sentence2020Ibid.; see also State v. Green, 239 N.J. 88 , 106 (2019) (stating that “[t]o guard against the risk of mugshot exposure,” enhanced identification practices would be required “going forward”); State v. Miles, 229 N.J. 83, 101 (2017) (“[G]oing forward, for offenses committed after the issuance of this opinion, we hold that the same - elements test will serve as the singular framework for determining wheth er two charges are in fact the same offense for purposes of double-jeopardy analysis.”); State v. Lunsford, 226 N.J. 129, 155 (2016) (directing that, “going 27 forward, the State must apply for | 1 | 1 |
Petersen v. Petersengreen1 sentence2019Super. 262, 279 (App. Div. 2011) (alterations in original) (quoting Petersen v. Petersen, 85 N.J. 638, 642 (1981)). | 1 | 1 |
N.H. v. H.H.green1 sentence2019Plaintiff requested that the court award her parenting time each Easter Sunday based on a singular claim that defendant violated the co-parenting agreement on Easter Sunday in 2018. "[I]n matrimonial matters . . . settlement agreements, being 'essentially consensual and voluntary in character[,] . . . [are] entitled to considerable weight with respect to their validity and enforceability' in equity, as long as they are fair and just." N.H. v. H.H., 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 |
|---|---|---|
Coletti v. UN. CTY. BD. OF C. FREEHOLDERS
green
2 sentences1997Coletti v. Union County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 217 N.J.Super. 31, 35 , 524 A.2d 1270 (App.Div.1987); Shapiro v. Essex County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 177 N.J.Super. 87, 92 , 424 A.2d 1203 (Law Div.1980), aff'd, 183 N.J.Super. 24 , 443 A.2d 219 (App.Div.), aff'd, 91 N.J. 430 , 453 A.2d 158 (1982).” State v. Rama, 298 N.J.Super. 339, 342 , 689 A.2d 776 (App.Div.1997) The singular exception, which is inapplicable to T.P.D., is when the court is made aware of some statutory disqualification that existed at the time of the initial petition. 1997Coletti v. Union County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 217 N.J.Super. 31, 35 , 524 A.2d 1270 (App.Div.1987); Shapiro v. Essex County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 177 N.J.Super. 87, 92 , 424 A.2d 1203 (Law Div.1980), aff'd, 183 N.J.Super. 24 , 443 A.2d 219 (App.Div.), aff'd, 91 N.J. 430 , 453 A.2d 158 (1982).” State v. Rama, 298 N.J.Super. 339, 342 , 689 A.2d 776 (App.Div.1997) The singular exception, which is inapplicable to T.P.D., is when the court is made aware of some statutory disqualification that existed at the time of the initial petition. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Shapiro v. Essex County Board of Chosen Freeholders
green
2 sentences1997Coletti v. Union County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 217 N.J.Super. 31, 35 , 524 A.2d 1270 (App.Div.1987); Shapiro v. Essex County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 177 N.J.Super. 87, 92 , 424 A.2d 1203 (Law Div.1980), aff'd, 183 N.J.Super. 24 , 443 A.2d 219 (App.Div.), aff'd, 91 N.J. 430 , 453 A.2d 158 (1982).” State v. Rama, 298 N.J.Super. 339, 342 , 689 A.2d 776 (App.Div.1997) The singular exception, which is inapplicable to T.P.D., is when the court is made aware of some statutory disqualification that existed at the time of the initial petition. 1997Coletti v. Union County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 217 N.J.Super. 31, 35 , 524 A.2d 1270 (App.Div.1987); Shapiro v. Essex County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 177 N.J.Super. 87, 92 , 424 A.2d 1203 (Law Div.1980), aff'd, 183 N.J.Super. 24 , 443 A.2d 219 (App.Div.), aff'd, 91 N.J. 430 , 453 A.2d 158 (1982).” State v. Rama, 298 N.J.Super. 339, 342 , 689 A.2d 776 (App.Div.1997) The singular exception, which is inapplicable to T.P.D., is when the court is made aware of some statutory disqualification that existed at the time of the initial petition. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Shapiro v. Essex Cty. Freeholders Bd.
green
2 sentences1997Coletti v. Union County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 217 N.J.Super. 31, 35 , 524 A.2d 1270 (App.Div.1987); Shapiro v. Essex County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 177 N.J.Super. 87, 92 , 424 A.2d 1203 (Law Div.1980), aff'd, 183 N.J.Super. 24 , 443 A.2d 219 (App.Div.), aff'd, 91 N.J. 430 , 453 A.2d 158 (1982).” State v. Rama, 298 N.J.Super. 339, 342 , 689 A.2d 776 (App.Div.1997) The singular exception, which is inapplicable to T.P.D., is when the court is made aware of some statutory disqualification that existed at the time of the initial petition. 1997Coletti v. Union County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 217 N.J.Super. 31, 35 , 524 A.2d 1270 (App.Div.1987); Shapiro v. Essex County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 177 N.J.Super. 87, 92 , 424 A.2d 1203 (Law Div.1980), aff'd, 183 N.J.Super. 24 , 443 A.2d 219 (App.Div.), aff'd, 91 N.J. 430 , 453 A.2d 158 (1982).” State v. Rama, 298 N.J.Super. 339, 342 , 689 A.2d 776 (App.Div.1997) The singular exception, which is inapplicable to T.P.D., is when the court is made aware of some statutory disqualification that existed at the time of the initial petition. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
State v. Rama
green
2 sentences1997Coletti v. Union County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 217 N.J.Super. 31, 35 , 524 A.2d 1270 (App.Div.1987); Shapiro v. Essex County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 177 N.J.Super. 87, 92 , 424 A.2d 1203 (Law Div.1980), aff'd, 183 N.J.Super. 24 , 443 A.2d 219 (App.Div.), aff'd, 91 N.J. 430 , 453 A.2d 158 (1982).” State v. Rama, 298 N.J.Super. 339, 342 , 689 A.2d 776 (App.Div.1997) The singular exception, which is inapplicable to T.P.D., is when the court is made aware of some statutory disqualification that existed at the time of the initial petition. 1997Coletti v. Union County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 217 N.J.Super. 31, 35 , 524 A.2d 1270 (App.Div.1987); Shapiro v. Essex County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 177 N.J.Super. 87, 92 , 424 A.2d 1203 (Law Div.1980), aff'd, 183 N.J.Super. 24 , 443 A.2d 219 (App.Div.), aff'd, 91 N.J. 430 , 453 A.2d 158 (1982).” State v. Rama, 298 N.J.Super. 339, 342 , 689 A.2d 776 (App.Div.1997) The singular exception, which is inapplicable to T.P.D., is when the court is made aware of some statutory disqualification that existed at the time of the initial petition. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
Shapiro v. Essex Cty. Freeholder Bd.
green
2 sentences1997Coletti v. Union County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 217 N.J.Super. 31, 35 , 524 A.2d 1270 (App.Div.1987); Shapiro v. Essex County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 177 N.J.Super. 87, 92 , 424 A.2d 1203 (Law Div.1980), aff'd, 183 N.J.Super. 24 , 443 A.2d 219 (App.Div.), aff'd, 91 N.J. 430 , 453 A.2d 158 (1982).” State v. Rama, 298 N.J.Super. 339, 342 , 689 A.2d 776 (App.Div.1997) The singular exception, which is inapplicable to T.P.D., is when the court is made aware of some statutory disqualification that existed at the time of the initial petition. 1997Coletti v. Union County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 217 N.J.Super. 31, 35 , 524 A.2d 1270 (App.Div.1987); Shapiro v. Essex County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders, 177 N.J.Super. 87, 92 , 424 A.2d 1203 (Law Div.1980), aff'd, 183 N.J.Super. 24 , 443 A.2d 219 (App.Div.), aff'd, 91 N.J. 430 , 453 A.2d 158 (1982).” State v. Rama, 298 N.J.Super. 339, 342 , 689 A.2d 776 (App.Div.1997) The singular exception, which is inapplicable to T.P.D., is when the court is made aware of some statutory disqualification that existed at the time of the initial petition. | 2 | 1997–1997 |
McCoy v. Louisiana
green
1 sentence2024McCoy makes clear the right to autonomy is not violated without "express statements of the client's will to maintain innocence . . . ." McCoy, 584 U.S. at 424 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Chun
green
2 sentences2011Chun, supra, 194 N.J. at 153 , 943 A. 2d 114 . 2011Chun, supra, 194 N.J. at 153 , 943 A. 2d 114 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
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.