Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 2007 Pa. Super. 199 - Commonwealth v. Nischan

2007 Pa. Super. 199 - Commonwealth v. Nischan’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably 2016 Pa. Super. 262 - Commonwealth v. Williams (2016), Commonwealth v. Flowers (2015)

27 state decisions

190200720102020decided

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 Anders v. California · Commonwealth v. Grant · Commonwealth v. Bomar · Commonwealth v. McClendon · Commonwealth v. Ellis

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

  1. “(1) retain new counsel to pursue the appeal; (2) proceed pro se on appeal; or (3) raise any points that the appellant deems worthy of the court's attention in addition to the points raised by counsel in the Anders brief.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Consequently, what counsel must do in an Anders brief is: (1) set forth in a neutral fashion the issues that the appellant wants to raise; (2) cite for this Court relevant legal authorities such as leading cases, statutes, and/or rules that deal with those issues; (3) make reference to the appropriate portions of the record so that this Court can locate the facts pertinent to the claims; and (4) aver that, after a thorough review of the record, the appeal is frivolous.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Appellant had no right to file a pro se motion because he was represented by counsel. This means that his pro se post-sentence motion was a nullity, having no legal effect.”
    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.