2006 Pa. Super. 166 - Commonwealth v. Grosella’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
October 2016
most recently cited
3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Commonwealth v. Grant · Commonwealth v. Lantzy · Commonwealth v. Halley · 2005 Pa. Super. 309 - Commonwealth v. West · 2003 Pa. Super. 165 - Commonwealth v. Franklin
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is also well-settled that the reinstatement of direct appeal rights is not the proper remedy when appellate counsel perfected a direct appeal but simply failed to raise certain claims_ In such circumstances, the appellant must proceed under the auspices of the PCRA, and the PCRA court should apply the traditional three-prong test for determining whether appellate counsel was ineffective.’’) (footnote omitted). . While the Majority opines that Appellant should not get a”
2 later decisions 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.