381 Pa. Super. 206 - Commonwealth v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Shatney v. State (2000), 413 Pa. Super. 397 - Commonwealth v. Dukeman (1992)
35 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 Anders v. California · Penson v. Ohio · Pennsylvania v. Finley · United States Accardi v. Shaughnessy · McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[T]he mandatory appointment requirement is a salutary one and best comports with efficient judicial administration and serious consideration of a prisoner’s claims. Counsel’s ability to frame the issues in a legally meaningful fashion insures the trial court that all relevant considerations will be brought to its attention * * *. It is a waste of valuable judicial manpower and an inefficient method of seriously treating the substantive merits of applications for postconviction relief to proceed without counsel for the applicants who have filed pro se * * *.” Shatney, 755 A.2d at 136 (quoting Harris, 553 A.2d at 433) (emphasis added).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Though administrative interests were clearly prejudiced by counsel’s non-compliance with the minimum documentation requisites of Turner and Finley , we find no reason to delay disposition of this frivolous appeal on that basis. The judicial resources needlessly expended as the result of appellate counsel’s failure to document his review of the record will not be recouped by prolonging the odyssey of this case through the courts of this Commonwealth. Remand for a new No Merit Letter would elevate form over both substantive and administrative interests and in accordance with the general policy propounded by our Supreme Court in Pa.R.A.P. 105 and Pa.R.Crim.P. 2 & 150 [now Pa.R.Crim.P. 101 & 109, respectively] — we decline to do so.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“a full, fair, and counselled opportunity”
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.