2004 Pa. Super. 203 - Commonwealth v. Ellison’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Lantzy · Schneider National Carriers v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board · Commonwealth v. Liebel · Commonwealth v. Pierce · 441 Pa. Super. 351 - Commonwealth v. Byrd
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In sum, we interpret Liebel to mean that a PCRA petitioner no longer needs to show that he is innocent or that the Supreme Court definitely would have taken the appeal or that he would have won in the Supreme Court in order to prove counsel’s ineffectiveness for failing to file a [petition for allowance of appeal], Nor does he need to demonstrate the merits of the underlying issues. The only things a petitioner needs to show are that he asked his attorney to file a [petition for allowance of appeal] and there is some chance that the Supreme Court would have taken his case, i.e., his claims are not completely frivolous.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“provided that appellate counsel believes that the claims that a petitioner would raise in a PAA to this Court would not be completely frivolous, a petitioner certainly has a right to file such a petition to this Court.”
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.