Roach v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis
2012
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Boykin v. Alabama · Hill v. Lockhart · Mayle v. Felix · Holland v. Florida · KRUPSKI v. COSTA CROCIERE S. P. A
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Roach argues that if amendments to timely pro se RCr 11.42 motions ■ are subject to limitations and are not allowed to freely relate back, then pro se motions filed close to the end of the limitations period will leave appointed • counsel insufficient time to raise additional meritorious claims. That result, however, is simply a consequence of having a limitations period and is no more unfair -than the complete barring of the movant’s claims when the initial motion is itself untimely. It is a result, moreover, that the movant can avoid by prosecuting his claim diligently.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Since even amendments within the RCr 11.42 limitations period are thus subject to scrutiny on the basis of unreasonable delay, it is ,all the more fitting that amendments proffered outside the limitations period be strictly limited to those relating back to a core of factual allegations of which the Commonwealth has been given timely notice.”
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.