165 N.J. Super. 421 - State v. Singletary’s Empirical Analysis
1979
Citation profile
24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently May 2002
24 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 141 N.J. Super. 1 - Kenwood Assocs. v. Bd. of Adj. Englewood · State v. Peace · 122 N.J. Super. 177 - State v. Hyers · 63 N.J. Super. 297 - Reiser v. Simon · 137 N.J. Super. 79 - State v. Fields
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“constitutes a disservice to the litigants, the attorneys and the appellate court.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... [W]e observe that the attention of trial judges is constantly being directed toward the necessity for specific findings. As we said in Reiser v. Simon, 63 N.J.Super. 297 (App.Div. 1960): * * * A trial judge must be explicit in his recital of the evidence and in his factual findings and must so correlate them to his legal conclusions that the * * * judgment entered manifestly appears to be undergirded by legal proof of substantial probative value and by specific factual findings thereon. * * * [at 300-301] In Kenwood Assocs. v. Englewood Bd. of Adj., 141 N.J.Super. 1 (App.Div. 1976), we pointed out that * * * a trial judge in a nonjury case has the duty to set forth fully his findings and reasons, factual and legal, for reaching his decision. R. 1:7-4; Conford, “Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law,” 92 N.J.L.J. 225 (1969). Mere conclusory terminology * * * does not suffice. Such perfunctory treatment constitutes a disservice to the litigants, the attorneys and the appellate court, [at 4] [At 424-425]”
2 later decisions 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.