156 N.J. Super. 486 - State v. Markt’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently February 2007
12 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on State v. Leonardis · Driscoll v. Burlington-Bristol Bridge Co. · State v. Leonardis · 155 N.J. Super. 207 - State v. Litton · 145 N.J. Super. 257 - State v. White
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"[T]he Prosecutor's reasons for his adverse decision... were within the ambit of Supreme Court Guidelines 3(i), which recommends that a defendant's application should generally be rejected where the crime, among others, was "(2) part of a continuing criminal business of enterprise," or ... "(4) a breach of the public trust where admission to a PTI Program would deprecate the seriousness of defendant's crime."'" [ Markt, supra, 156 N.J. Super. at 492 , 384 A. 2d 162 .]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(4) a breach of the public trust where admission to a PTI program would deprecate the seriousness of defendant's crime * * *.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“While they constitute an eloquent plea for leniency, they deal largely for his potential for rehabilitation, which is not disputed. But they gloss over the plain fact that defendant was guilty of a breach of public trust by the commission not merely of a single criminal act, but of a series of embezzlements and forgeries extending over a period of months. On this ground the court concluded that defendant had not carried the heavy burden of showing a patent and gross abuse of discretion. [ Id. ]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.