Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2002 Pa. Super. 296 - Commonwealth v. Kubis

2002 Pa. Super. 296 - Commonwealth v. Kubis’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
states following
December 2020
most recently cited

11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently December 2020

11 state decisions

70200220102020decided

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 379 Pa. Super. 390 - Commonwealth v. Finley · Commonwealth v. Gamboa-Taylor · Commonwealth v. Murray · Commonwealth v. Breakiron · 2000 Pa. Super. 274 - Commonwealth v. Hutchins

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. “(D) On a second or subsequent petition, when an unrepresented defendant satisfies the judge that the defendant is unable to afford or otherwise procure counsel, and an evidentiary hearing is required as provided in Rule 908, the judge shall appoint counsel to represent the defendant. * * * (F) When counsel is appointed, (2) the appointment of counsel shall be effective throughout the post-conviction collateral proceedings, including any appeal from disposition of the petition for post-conviction collateral relief.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence”; or (3)”
    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.