Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 321 PASUPER 66 - Commonwealth v. Heck

Commonwealth v. Heck’s Empirical Analysis

1983

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
May 2021
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 2021

5 state decisions

2019831990200020102020decided

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 272 Pa. Super. 546 - Commonwealth v. Rhodes · Commonwealth v. Dowling · 253 Pa. Super. 422 - Commonwealth v. Payton · Commonwealth v. Taylor · 246 Pa. Super. 170 - Commonwealth v. Herold

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““[although the right to an evidentiary hearing is not an absolute one, a hearing should be held on any issue which the PC[R]A court is not certain lacks merit. Commonwealth v. Rhodes, 272 Pa.Super. 546, 416 A.2d 1031 (1979). We will only remand for an evidentiary hearing if it is not possible to determine from the record whether the petition is frivolous and without support. Commonwealth v. Payton, 253 Pa.Super. 422 , 385 A.2d 410 (1978). Otherwise, we will affirm if our review of the record evinces that the claims are patently frivolous. Commonwealth v. Taylor, 491 Pa. 205 , 420 A.2d 413 (1980).””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““[t]he information gleaned from the record before us is insufficient to support a finding [by the trial court] of patently frivolous claims. We must, therefore remand the matter for an evidentiary hearing on appellant’s claim that ineffective assistance of counsel before and during his [no contest] plea hearing rendered his plea involuntary and unintelligent.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.