43 New Jersey opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2026 6 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re the Commitment of W.Z.green2 sentences2026At the commitment hearing, the State must establish the following elements by clear and convincing evidence: (1) that the individual has been convicted of a sexually violent offense, N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.26; (2) that he suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder, ibid.; and (3) "that as a result of his psychiatric abnormality or disorder, 'it is highly likely that the individual will not control his or her sexually violent behavior and will reoffend.'" R.F., 217 N.J. at 173 (quoting In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109, 130 (2002)). 2021At a commitment hearing, the State has the burden of proving under the SVPA that the offender poses a threat: to the health and safety of others because of the likelihood of his or her engaging in sexually violent acts . . . . [T]he State must prove that threat by demonstrating that the individual has serious difficulty in controlling sexually harmful behavior such that it is highly likely that he or she will not control his or her sexually violent behavior and will reoffend. [W.Z., 173 N.J. at 132 .] A-1183-19T5 5 The court must address the offender's "present serious difficulty with con trol | 7 | 11 |
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of R.F. Svp 490-08green2 sentences2026At the commitment hearing, the State must establish the following elements by clear and convincing evidence: (1) that the individual has been convicted of a sexually violent offense, N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.26; (2) that he suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder, ibid.; and (3) "that as a result of his psychiatric abnormality or disorder, 'it is highly likely that the individual will not control his or her sexually violent behavior and will reoffend.'" R.F., 217 N.J. at 173 (quoting In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109, 130 (2002)). 2020At the commitment hearing, the State must establish three elements: (1) that the individual has been convicted of a sexually violent offense; (2) that he [or she] suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder; and (3) that as a result of his [or her] psychiatric abnormality or disorder, "it is highly likely that the individual will not control his or her sexually violent behavior and will reoffend . . . ." A-3608-18T5 8 [In re Civil Commitment of R.F., 217 N.J. 152, 173 (2014) (citations omitted) (quoting In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109, 130 (2002)).] In certain circumstance | 5 | 7 |
Matter of DCgreen2 sentences2014Prior to the enactment of the SVPA, this Court noted that in the context of a commitment hearing, the determination of a violent sex offender’s dangerousness is “a legal one, not a medical one, even though it is guided by medical expert testimony.” D.C., supra, 146 N.J. at 38, 59 . 2014Prior to the enactment of the SVPA, this Court noted that in the context of a commitment hearing, the determination of a violent sex offender’s dangerousness is “a legal one, not a medical one, even though it is guided by medical expert testimony.” D.C., supra, 146 N.J. at 38, 59 . | 2 | 2 |
In Re Commitment of MMgreen2 sentences2021A judge presiding over a commitment hearing is vested with extraordinary responsibility; when the judge does not apply the legal standards and find the relevant facts, our subsequent correction of the abuse of discretion is a poor remedy for the ill. [M.M., 384 N.J. 2019It would come as no surprise if any of those judges became either inured or enervated by this constant, unrelieved association with the mentally deprived and their lay and medical guardians to the extent that the beleaguered judge failed to dot every "i" or cross every "t." This, however, is no reason for them or for us to forget that which is the basic teaching of S.L.: that each one in the bundle of rights of these committed persons deserves protection. [Id. at 219.] A-3251-17T2 14 "A judge presiding over a commitment hearing is vested with extraordinary responsibility; when the judge does n | 1 | 5 |
State v. Fieldsgreen2 sentences1984In State v. Fields, 77 N.J. 282 (1978), the Court required periodic reviews of the status of committees at which the State would bear the same burden of proof as it had at the initial commitment hearing. 1984In State v. Fields, 77 N.J. 282 (1978), the Court required periodic reviews of the status of committees at which the State would bear the same burden of proof as it had at the initial commitment hearing. | 1 | 5 |
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of D.Y. Svp 491-08green2 sentences2017R.L.M. noted that in commitment hearings for sexually- violent predators, the Supreme Court held a "defendant has a statutory right to appear pro se at a commitment hearing, but only if standby counsel is present." Id. at 147 (emphasis added) (citing In re Civil Commitment of D.Y., 218 N.J. 359, 384 (2014) (citing N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.29(c) and -27.31(a))). 2017D.Y., supra, 218 N.J. at 384 , 95 A.3d 157 . | 1 | 3 |
In Re Civil Commitment of VAgreen1 sentence2021Our "[r]eview of a trial court's decision regarding a commitment hearing is extremely narrow." In re Civil Commitment of V.A., 357 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Commitment of AXDgreen1 sentence2020At the commitment hearing, the State must establish three elements: (1) that the individual has been convicted of a sexually violent offense; (2) that he [or she] suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder; and (3) that as a result of his [or her] psychiatric abnormality or disorder, "it is highly likely that the individual will not control his or her sexually violent behavior and will reoffend . . . ." A-3608-18T5 8 [In re Civil Commitment of R.F., 217 N.J. 152, 173 (2014) (citations omitted) (quoting In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109, 130 (2002)).] In certain circumstance | 1 | 1 |
State v. Torresgreen1 sentence2020At the commitment hearing, the State must establish three elements: (1) that the individual has been convicted of a sexually violent offense; (2) that he [or she] suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder; and (3) that as a result of his [or her] psychiatric abnormality or disorder, "it is highly likely that the individual will not control his or her sexually violent behavior and will reoffend . . . ." A-3608-18T5 8 [In re Civil Commitment of R.F., 217 N.J. 152, 173 (2014) (citations omitted) (quoting In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109, 130 (2002)).] In certain circumstance | 1 | 1 |
In re the Commitment of J.P.green1 sentence2019See In re Commitment of J.P., 339 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Application of Zogreen2 sentences2019See In re Commitment of Z.O., 197 N.J. 2019K.K.'s interpretation would create an "impossibly compressed time schedule," and we "cannot ascribe . . . the intent to create a time schedule that would not work." Z.O., 197 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Commitment of BLgreen1 sentence2019Super. at 332-33 (alterations in original).] "Under the civil commitment law, a hearing is an evidence-gathering proceeding." In re Commitment of B.L., 346 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committeegreen2 sentences2017The executive branch of the federal government, not the judicial branch, has discretion on when to deport detainees and may opt to defer action due to "humanitarian reasons or simply for its own convenience." Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 483 , 119 S. Ct. 936, 943 , 142 L. 2017The executive branch of the federal government, not the judicial branch, has discretion on when to deport detainees and may opt to defer action due to "humanitarian reasons or simply for its own convenience." Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 483 , 119 S. Ct. 936, 943 , 142 L. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Civil Commitment of JHMgreen1 sentence2017At a commitment hearing, the State must prove by clear and convincing evidence the individual poses: a threat to the health and safety of others because of the likelihood of his or her engaging in sexually violent acts[,] . . . by demonstrating that the individual has serious difficulty in controlling sexually harmful behavior such that it is highly likely that he or she will not control his or her sexually violent behavior and will reoffend. [In re Commitment of W.Z., 173 N.J. 109, 130 (2002); see also In re Civil Commitment of J.H.M., 367 N.J. | 1 | 1 |
Insurance Co. of North America v. Anthony Amadei Sand & Gravel, Inc.green2 sentences2003See Amadei Sand & Gravel, 162 N.J. at 175-76 , 742 A. 2d 550 . 2003See Amadei Sand & Gravel, 162 N.J. at 175-76 , 742 A. 2d 550 . | 1 | 1 |
United States Ex Rel. Eichenlaub v. Shaughnessygreen1 sentence1993I believe my conclusions also satisfy the ADA and Arline, that judicial decisions in this area be based upon, "(a) the nature of the risk *204 (how the disease is transmitted), (b) the duration of the risk (how long is the carrier infectious), (c) the severity of the risk (what is the potential harm to third parties), and (d) the probabilities the disease will be transmitted and will cause varying degrees of harm." 480 U.S. at 288 , 107 S.Ct. at 1131 , 94 L.Ed. 2d at 321. | 1 | 1 |
Rutgers v. Pilusogreen2 sentences1986Moreover, in Rutgers v. Piluso, supra , the court stated that it did not read Aviation Services v. Bd. of Adjustment of Hanover Tp., supra , "to be a commitment that immunity must be granted whenever that superiority exists." 60 N.J. at 152, n. 4 . *156 New Jersey now rejects any hard and fast rule in determining whether a governmental agency is immune from local zoning regulations. 1986Moreover, in Rutgers v. Piluso, supra , the court stated that it did not read Aviation Services v. Bd. of Adjustment of Hanover Tp., supra , "to be a commitment that immunity must be granted whenever that superiority exists." 60 N.J. at 152, n. 4 . *156 New Jersey now rejects any hard and fast rule in determining whether a governmental agency is immune from local zoning regulations. | 1 | 1 |
| Tevis v. Tevisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Vinegragreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Civil Commitment of EST
green
2 sentences2007In E.S.T., supra, 371 N.J.Super. 562 , 854 A. 2d 936 , cited by J.M.B., the opinions of the expert witnesses were based substantially on the opinions of the authors of the forensic examination reports in support of the application for temporary commitment, neither of whom were testifying witnesses *118 in the commitment hearing. 2007In E.S.T., supra, 371 N.J.Super. 562 , 854 A. 2d 936 , cited by J.M.B., the opinions of the expert witnesses were based substantially on the opinions of the authors of the forensic examination reports in support of the application for temporary commitment, neither of whom were testifying witnesses *118 in the commitment hearing. | 2 | 2005–2007 |
In Re Commitment of RS
green
2 sentences2001J.P. joins in the appeal brought by R.S., 339 N.J.Super. 507 , 773 A. 2d 72 (App.Div. 2001), which has been argued with the present appeal, challenging the admissibility of actuarial assessment instruments at sex offender commitment hearings. 2001J.P. joins in the appeal brought by R.S., 339 N.J.Super. 507 , 773 A. 2d 72 (App.Div. 2001), which has been argued with the present appeal, challenging the admissibility of actuarial assessment instruments at sex offender commitment hearings. | 2 | 2001–2001 |
Matter of Commitment of GG
green
1 sentence2021Super. 597, 605 (App. Div. 1994). "[A] hospital treatment team's failure to arrange for follow-up care before a commitment hearing does not present the 'unavailability of an appropriate placement' contemplated under Rule 4:74-7(h)(2)." Id. at 600 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Matter of Commitment of DM
green
1 sentence2021Super. at 332-33 (alterations in original).] Here, the dearth of proper and complete findings would otherwise require a remand for further findings by the court, see, e.g., D.M., 313 N.J. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
In re Commitment of K.D.
green
1 sentence2019Id. at 99 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
In re the Civil Commitment of D.Y.
neutral
2 sentences2014The Court granted certification, “limited to the issue of whether there is a constitutional right to self-representation at a commitment hearing under the Sexually Violent Predator Act, N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38.” 213 N.J. 394 , 64 A.3d 236 (2013). 2014The Court granted certification, “limited to the issue of whether there is a constitutional right to self-representation at a commitment hearing under the Sexually Violent Predator Act, N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38.” 213 N.J. 394 , 64 A.3d 236 (2013). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
In Re Civil Commitment of AEF
green
2 sentences2009A.E.F., supra, 377 N.J.Super. at 492 , 873 A. 2d 604 . 2009A.E.F., supra, 377 N.J.Super. at 492 , 873 A. 2d 604 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
In re Civil Commitment of J.S.W
green
2 sentences2005This is particularly true when the clinical certificates themselves contain little in the way of analysis, as is often the case, and was the case here. [6] Our opinion in E.S.T. should not, however, be read to preclude reliance, in part, on prior evaluations conducted for other purposes, such as ADTC and other psychiatric evaluations conducted in connection with sentencing or for parole consideration, see In re Commitment of J.S.W., 371 N.J.Super. 217, 225 , 852 A.2d 1107 (App.Div. 2004), as long as the opinion ultimately rendered at the initial commitment hearing is that of the witness based 2005This is particularly true when the clinical certificates themselves contain little in the way of analysis, as is often the case, and was the case here. [6] Our opinion in E.S.T. should not, however, be read to preclude reliance, in part, on prior evaluations conducted for other purposes, such as ADTC and other psychiatric evaluations conducted in connection with sentencing or for parole consideration, see In re Commitment of J.S.W., 371 N.J.Super. 217, 225 , 852 A.2d 1107 (App.Div. 2004), as long as the opinion ultimately rendered at the initial commitment hearing is that of the witness based | 1 | 2005–2005 |
In Re Commitment of MG
green
2 sentences2004We need not cite the many cases that have acknowledged Wigmore's seminal observation that cross-examination is "beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth." 5 Wigmore on Evidence § 1367 (3rd ed.1940). [5] In the course of an opinion dealing with the need for pre-commitment notice of an SVPA probable cause hearing, N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.28, for individuals already confined to a state facility, Judge Carchman, albeit in dictum, took note of the fact that at the final commitment hearing, "the alleged SVP will have a timely opportunity to challenge the commitmen 2004We need not cite the many cases that have acknowledged Wigmore's seminal observation that cross-examination is "beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth." 5 Wigmore on Evidence § 1367 (3rd ed.1940). [5] In the course of an opinion dealing with the need for pre-commitment notice of an SVPA probable cause hearing, N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.28, for individuals already confined to a state facility, Judge Carchman, albeit in dictum, took note of the fact that at the final commitment hearing, "the alleged SVP will have a timely opportunity to challenge the commitmen | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Stizza v. Essex County Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court
green
2 sentences2003The New Jersey Constitution of 1844 was interpreted to preclude a right to a trial by jury in a commitment hearing, see Stizza v. Essex County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, 132 N.J.L. 406, 408-09 , 40 A. 2d 567 (E. & A.1945), and no such right was created by the current New Jersey Constitution of 1947. 2003The New Jersey Constitution of 1844 was interpreted to preclude a right to a trial by jury in a commitment hearing, see Stizza v. Essex County Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, 132 N.J.L. 406, 408-09 , 40 A. 2d 567 (E. & A.1945), and no such right was created by the current New Jersey Constitution of 1947. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
School Bd. of Nassau Cty. v. Arline
green
2 sentences1993I believe my conclusions also satisfy the ADA and Arline, that judicial decisions in this area be based upon, "(a) the nature of the risk *204 (how the disease is transmitted), (b) the duration of the risk (how long is the carrier infectious), (c) the severity of the risk (what is the potential harm to third parties), and (d) the probabilities the disease will be transmitted and will cause varying degrees of harm." 480 U.S. at 288 , 107 S.Ct. at 1131 , 94 L.Ed. 2d at 321. 1993I believe my conclusions also satisfy the ADA and Arline, that judicial decisions in this area be based upon, "(a) the nature of the risk *204 (how the disease is transmitted), (b) the duration of the risk (how long is the carrier infectious), (c) the severity of the risk (what is the potential harm to third parties), and (d) the probabilities the disease will be transmitted and will cause varying degrees of harm." 480 U.S. at 288 , 107 S.Ct. at 1131 , 94 L.Ed. 2d at 321. | 1 | 1993–1993 |
State v. Krol
green
2 sentences1990And while Krol established that the State must show, at the initial commitment hearing, that the NGI defendant, just like a civil committee, was likely to pose a danger to himself or to society, the Court ruled at the same time that the burden of proof was only a preponderance of the evidence, noting the contrary trend in civil commitments requiring a greater burden of proof. [4] Id. at 257 , 344 A. 2d 289 . 1990And while Krol established that the State must show, at the initial commitment hearing, that the NGI defendant, just like a civil committee, was likely to pose a danger to himself or to society, the Court ruled at the same time that the burden of proof was only a preponderance of the evidence, noting the contrary trend in civil commitments requiring a greater burden of proof. 4 Id. at 257 , 344 A.2d 289 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Berger v. State
green
1 sentence1986Instead, the test "is basically one of legislative intent i.e., whether the Legislature intended the particular governmental unit to be immune with respect to the particular enterprise." Berger v. State, supra, 71 N.J. at 218 ; Rutgers v. Piluso, supra, 60 N.J. at 152 ; 8 McQuillin, supra, at 41. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Township Committee of Denville v. Board of Education green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.