306 Pa. Super. 25 - Commonwealth v. Evans’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently July 2015
15 state decisions
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 Glasser v. United States · Cuyler v. Sullivan · Ogletree v. Ohio · United States v. Thompson · Commonwealth Ex Rel. Whitling v. Russell
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Representation ' of co-defendants - by different attorneys of the same law firm constitutes dual or joint representation. Commonwealth v. Albertson, 269 Pa.Super. 505 , 410 A.2d 815 (1979). ... However, dual representation is insufficient to support a finding of conflict of interest, and is not a per se violation of constitutional guarantees of effective assistance of counsel. See Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 , 62 S.Ct. 457 , 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942). To make the dual representation rise to a true conflict, appellant need not show that actual harm resulted, but must at least show the possibility of harm. Commonwealth v. Westbrook, [ 400 A.2d 160 (1979) ]. The law applicable to dual representation cases was delineated in Commonwealth v. Breaker, 456 Pa. 341, 344-45 , 318 A.2d 354, 356 (1974): “Our dual representation cases make several principles clear. First, ‘[i]f, in the representation of more than one defendant, a conflict of interest arises, the mere existence of such conflict vitiates the proceedings, even though no actual harm results. The potentiality that such harm may result, fur nishes the appropriate criterion.’ Commonwealth ex rel. Whitling v. Russell, 406 Pa. 45, 48 , 176 A.2d 641, 643 (1962). Second, a defendant must demonstrate that a conflict of interest actually existed at trial, because ‘dual representation alone does not amount to a conflict of interest.’ Commonwealth v. Wilson, 429 Pa. 458, 463 , 240 A.2d 498, 501 (1968); Commonwealth ex rel. Corbin v”
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.