2012 Pa. Super. 98 - Commonwealth v. Ford’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
29 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Coleman v. Thompson · Commonwealth v. Grant · In re Jones · Commonwealth v. Albrecht · Commonwealth v. Pursell
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This Court may affirm a PCRA court's decision on any grounds if the record supports it.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“a majority of the Supreme Court agrees that issues of PCRA counsel effectiveness must be raised in a serial PCRA petition or in response to a notice of dismissal before the PCRA court.”); see also Commonwealth v. Jette, 611 Pa. 166 , 23 A.3d 1032 , 1044 n. 14 (2011); Commonwealth v. Hill, 609 Pa. 410 , 16 A.3d 484 , 497 n. 17 (2011); id. at 498 (Saylor, J. dissenting); Commonwealth v. Paddy, 609 Pa. 272 , 15 A.3d 431, 479 (2011) (Saylor, J. concurring and dissenting) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[A]bsent recognition of a constitutional right to effective collateral review counsel, claims of PCRA counsel ineffectiveness cannot be raised for the first time after a notice of appeal has been taken from the underlying PCRA matter.”
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.