Supreme Court of New Jersey· 10/7/1976

State v. Milligan

Citations

71 N.J. 373
365 A.2d 914
1976 N.J. LEXIS 161

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

noting that other courts have found informant’s participation “important, if not determinativef,] in warranting disclosure”
rejecting as speculative claim that informant would impeach State police witness
privilege applied even though officer’s description of defendant had minor mistakes where narcotic sale occurred in defendant’s house and not on street
disclosure of informant's identity not required unless essential to defendant's preparation of his defense
\The appropriate standard for reviewing ... a motion for disclosure is to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion after weighing the competing considerations of the balancing test.\
\The appropriate standard for reviewing . . . a motion for disclosure is to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion after weighing the competing considerations of the balancing test.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Coneokd, Pashman

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

46 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

45 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.