Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 460 Pa. 95 - Commonwealth v. Dancer

Commonwealth v. Dancer’s Empirical Analysis

1975

Citation profile

528
cited by 528 later decisions
2
states following
April 2018
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 526 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 528 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Commonwealth v. Hubbard (1977), Commonwealth v. Grant (2002)

2 federal appellate · 526 state decisions

328019751980199020002010decided

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 Commonwealth Ex Rel. Washington v. Maroney · Gateway Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers · Gilbert v. Korvette's Inc. · Concord Township Appeal · Sherwood v. Elgart

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

  1. ““ . . . inquiry ceases and counsel’s assistance is deemed constitutionally effective once we are able to conclude that the particular course chosen by counsel had some reasonable basis designed to effectuate his client’s interests. The test is not whether other alternatives were more reasonable, employing a hindsight evaluation of the record. Although weigh the alternatives we must, the balance tips in favor of a finding of effective assistance as soon as it is determined that trial counsel’s decisions had any reasonable basis.” (Emphasis in original.)”
    15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “it is unrealistic to expect trial counsel on direct appeal to argue his own ineffectiveness.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““(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 (2) The petitioner is unable to prove the existence of extraordinary circumstances to justify his failure to raise the issue.””
    2 later decisions 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.