Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2001 Pa. Super. 46 - Commonwealth v. Statum

2001 Pa. Super. 46 - Commonwealth v. Statum’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
January 2021
most recently cited

4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 2021

4 state decisions

30200120102020decided

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 Commonwealth v. Williams · Commonwealth v. Hackett · Commonwealth v. McCracken · Commonwealth v. Rovinski · 2000 Pa. Super. 330 - Commonwealth v. Edwards

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

  1. “The threshold inquiry in ineffectiveness claims is whether the issue/argument/tactic which counsel has foregone and which forms the basis for the assertion of ineffectiveness is of arguable merit; for counsel cannot be considered ineffective for failing to assert a merit-less claim. Once this threshold is met we apply the “reasonable basis” test to determine whether counsel’s chosen course was designed to effectuate his Ghent’s interests. If we conclude that the particular course chosen by counsel had some reasonable basis, our inquiry ceases and counsel’s assistance is deemed effective. If we determine that there was no reasonable basis for counsel’s chosen course, then the accused must demonstrate that counsel’s ineffectiveness worked to his prejudice.”
    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.