2016 Pa. Super. 262 - Commonwealth v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis
2016
Citation profile
24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
October 2024
most recently cited
24 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Alleyne v. United States · Commonwealth v. Ellis · 2010 Pa. Super. 46 - Commonwealth v. Moury · Commonwealth v. Jette · 2006 Pa. Super. 132 - Commonwealth v. Evans
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“this Court is required to docket a pro se notice of appeal despite Appellant being represented by counsel, based on the rationale in [ Commonwealth v. Ellis , 534 Pa. 176 , 626 A.2d 1137 , 1138 (Pa. 1993) ] and I.O.P. 65.24.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In this Commonwealth, hybrid representation is not permitted.... [I]ndeed, pro se motions have no legal effect and, therefore, are legal nullities.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[w]e deem this a breakdown in the operation of the courts”
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.