In Re Hardt’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
2 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently January 2001 · most notably Knight v. City of Margate (1981), State v. Dively (1983)
2 district · 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 In Re Mattera · In Re Spitalnick · In Re Sgro · In Re Stevens
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining, and enforcing, and should himself observe, high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved. The provisions of this Code should be construed and applied to further that objective.” CANON 2(A): “A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” CANON 3(A)(1):”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“visible and apparent to the community, destroys the trust and confidence in our institutions upon which our entire government structure is predicated. We cannot and will not tolerate members of the profession subverting judicial integrity at any level, for the damage is irreparable. [In re Spitalnick, 63 N.J. 429, 432 (1973).]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Murray
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.