Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 181 A3D 1168 - Com. Pennsylvania v. Smith

Com. Pennsylvania v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

2018

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
March 2026
most recently cited

11 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Commonwealth v. Widmer · Commonwealth v. Johnson · Commonwealth v. Sherwood · Commonwealth v. Sattazahn · Commonwealth v. Karkaria

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

  1. “It is well-established that counsel is presumed effective, and to rebut that presumption, the PCRA petitioner must demonstrate that counsel's performance was deficient and that such deficiency prejudiced him. To prevail on an ineffectiveness claim, the petitioner has the burden to prove that (1) the underlying substantive claim has arguable merit; (2) counsel whose effectiveness is being challenged did not have a reasonable basis for his or her actions or failure to act; and (3) the petitioner suffered prejudice as a result of counsel's deficient performance. The failure to satisfy any one of the prongs will cause the entire claim to fail.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.