Commonwealth v. Satchell’s Empirical Analysis
1968
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 72 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently March 1985 · most notably Commonwealth v. Faison (1970), Commonwealth v. Tinson (1969)
3 federal appellate · 72 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 Johnson v. Zerbst · Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois · Carnley v. Cochran · Henry v. State of Mississippi · Tot v. United States
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) For the purposes of this act, an issue is waived if: 7 (1) The petitioner knowingly and understandingly failed to raise it and it could have been raised before the trial, at the trial, on appeal, in a habeas corpus proceeding or any other proceeding actually conducted, or in a prior proceeding actually initiated under this act; and 8 (2) The petitioner is unable to prove the existence of extraordinary circumstances to justify his failure to raise the issue. 9 (c) There is a rebuttable presumption that a failure to appeal a ruling or to raise an issue is a knowing and understanding failure.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"We can find no relevant distinction for purposes of section seven between a petition which contains no factual averments supporting the alleged constitutional deprivation and one which does but fails to allege circumstances sufficient to show, if believed, that the petitioner's [failure to raise it in a prior proceeding] should not operate as a waiver. In either case a dismissal without giving leave to amend would be a dismissal for want of particularity and such a dismissal is prohibited by section seven."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“"The court may grant leave to amend or withdraw the petition at any time. Amendment shall be freely allowed in order to achieve substantial justice. No petition may be dismissed for want of particularity unless the petitioner is first given an opportunity to clarify his petition."”
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.