250 Pa. Super. 13 - Commonwealth v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis
1977
Citation profile
10
cited by 10 later decisions
1
states following
October 1978
most recently cited
10 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Anders v. California · Commonwealth v. Ingram · Commonwealth v. Baker · Commonwealth v. Greer · Commonwealth v. Maddox
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, the brief counsel has submitted ... is not an advocate’s brief, except in the sense that it advocates granting his request to withdraw. See Commonwealth v. Palmer, 455 Pa. III, 112 (1974). And, second, counsel does not certify that any argument he could make on appeal would be wholly frivolous. Instead, counsel only states that he is “unable to raise or argue issues which would entitle appellant to relief . . . .” Statements of this nature are reminiscent of the no-merit letters which the United States Supreme Court condemned in Anders [Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967)], and the certification which our Supreme Court held insufficient in Commonwealth v. Greer, 455 Pa. 106 , 314 A.2d 513 , supra. See also ABA Project on Minimum Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Providing Defense Services § 5.3 (Approved Draft, 1968). Lack of merit in an appeal is not the legal equivalent of frivolity. Id. Commonwealth v. Hall, 250 Pa.Super. 13 , 378 A.2d 428 (1977).”
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.