Commonwealth v. Alexander’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
83 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently September 2012 · most notably Commonwealth v. Lawson (1988), Commonwealth v. Allen (1999)
83 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 Sanders v. United States · Commonwealth v. Hubbard · Commonwealth v. Pettus · Witt v. State · Hance v. Georgia
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 83 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Furthermore, section 1180-9 provides the PCHA court may deny a hearing on a petition if the petitioner’s claim is ‘patently frivolous and is without a trace of support either in the record or from other evidence submitted by the petitioner. The court may also deny a hearing on a specific question of fact when a full and fair evidentiary hearing upon that question was held.. . . ’ Clearly then, the PCHA contemplates that a second (or greater number of) petition(s) is the exception and the decision whether to dismiss such petitions without a hearing lies in the sound discretion of the PCHA court whose determination in this regard will be affirmed absent abuse. See Commonwealth v. Sherard, 483 Pa. 183 , 394 A.2d 971 (1978) (right to hearing not absolute and Commonwealth v. Bennett, 472 Pa. 314 , 372 A.2d 713 (1977).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“(b) Issues waived For the purpose of this subchapter, an issue is waived if (1) the petitioner knowingly and understanding^ failed to raise it and it could have been raised before the trial, at trial, on appeal, in a habeas corpus proceeding or any other proceeding naturally conducted or in a prior proceeding actually initiated under this subchapter (2) the petitioner is unable to prove the existence of extraordinary circumstances to justify his failure to raise the issue. (c) Presumption There is a rebuttable presumption that a failure to appeal a ruling or to raise an issue is a knowing and understanding failure.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the system needs revision to prevent abuse by prisoners, a waste of the precious and limited resources available for the criminal process, and public disrespect for the judgments of criminal courts.”
2 later decisions 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.