Commonwealth v. Perry’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “This Court analyzes PCRA appeals in the light most favorable to the prevailing party at the PCRA level. Our review is limited to the findings of the PCRA court and the evidence of record and we do not disturb a PCRA court's ruling if it is supported by evidence of record and is free of legal error. Similarly, we grant great deference to the factual findings of the PCRA court and will not disturb those findings unless they have no support in the record. However, we afford no such deference to its legal conclusions. Where the petitioner raises questions of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary. Finally, we may affirm a PCRA court's decision on any grounds if the record supports it.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Dozier · 2016 Pa. Super. 195 - Commonwealth v. Benner

2. “we grant great deference to the factual findings of the PCRA court and will not disturb those findings unless they have no support in the record. However, we afford no such deference to its legal conclusions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 117 - Commonwealth v. Ward-Green

3. “Where the petitioner raises questions of law, our standard of review is de novo and our scope of review is plenary.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 117 - Commonwealth v. Ward-Green