2014 Pa. Super. 28 - Commonwealth v. Partee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 state decisions

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. “We note that the within petition is not an attack on Appellant's sentence, nor is he alleging that he is innocent of the offenses of which he was convicted. Appellant is not asserting that his conviction or sentence resulted from a violation of the Constitution, ineffective assistance of counsel, an unlawfully-induced plea, obstruction by government officials of his right to appeal, newly-discovered evidence, an illegal sentence, or a lack of jurisdiction. 42 Pa.C.S. § 9543(a)(2). In short, we agree with Appellant that his claim does not fall within the scope of the PCRA and should not be reviewed under the standard applicable to the dismissal of PCRA petitions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Johnson

2. “look to what the parties to this plea agreement reasonably understood to be the terms of the agreement”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dougherty v. Pa. State Police of Pa.

3. “properly reviewed as a petition for habeas corpus”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dougherty v. Pa. State Police of Pa.