243 N.J. Super. 498 - State v. Budis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 22 state decisions

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.

1. “he must apply for an order of the court before the trial or preliminary hearing, except that the court may allow the motion to be made during trial if the court determines that the evidence is newly discovered and could not have been obtained earlier through the exercise of due diligence. After the application is made, the court shall conduct a hearing in camera to determine the admissibility of the evidence. If the court finds that evidence offered by the defendant regarding the sexual conduct of the victim is relevant and that the probative value of the evidence offered is not outweighed by its collateral nature or by the probability that its admission will create undue prejudice, confusion of the issues, or unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the victim, the court shall enter an order setting forth with specificity what evidence may be introduced and the nature of the questions which shall be permitted, and the reasons why the court finds that such evidence satisfies the standards contained in this section. The defendant may then offer evidence under the order of the court. [ N.J.S.A. 2C:14-7(a).]”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Scherzer · State v. Budis

2. “State v. Budis, 243 N.J.Super. 498, 506 , 580 A. 2d 283 (App.Div.1990), aff'd, 125 N.J. 519 , 593 A. 2d 784 (1991) (quoting Harriett R. Galvin, Shielding Rape Victims in the State and Federal Courts: A Proposal For the Second Decade, 70 Minn.L.Rev. 763 (1986)).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 385 N.J. Super. 72 - State v. REB

3. “unless it is material to negating the element of force or coercion or to proving that the source of semen, pregnancy or disease is a person other than defendant”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 249 N.J. Super. 246 - State v. Ross