In it, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously adopted a duty to retreat—a legal requirement that a threatened person cannot stand one's ground and apply lethal force in self-defense, but must instead retreat to a place of safety.

The duty to retreat, as endorsed in Abbott, is in direct opposition to the “true man” doctrine articulated in Erwin v. State, 29 Ohio St. 186 (1876).

When the Scaranos hired a contractor to pave their portion of the driveway, Abbott purchased some excess asphalt with which to create a doorstop for his garage door.

After a common trial, Abbot was acquitted by the jury of the charges relating to Michael and Mary but was found guilty as to Nicholas.

The Court first outlined the arguments for and against imposition of a duty to retreat, noting that the question has divided the authorities.

Opponents of a retreat rule argue that the law "should not denounce conduct as criminal when it accords with the behavior of reasonable men."

Furthermore, advocates of retreat argue that "not only do right-thinking men agree, but further a rule so requiring may well induce others to adhere to that worthy standard of behavior."

The Court then stated that while sister jurisdictions are split on the question, the majority view rejected the duty to retreat in favor of the true man doctrine.