Commonwealth v. Isabell’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 72 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably Sample v. Diecks (1989), Commonwealth v. Lawson (1988)
11 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 Commonwealth v. Blair · Hill v. United States ex rel. Wampler · Commonwealth v. Walker · Commonwealth Ex Rel. Stevens v. Myers · Commonwealth v. Norris
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Since this appeal is properly construed as a challenge to action by the Bureau of Corrections and is not a direct or collateral attack on the conviction or sentence imposed by the trial court it is not properly brought under the Post-Conviction Hearing Act. See 19 P.S. § 1180-3(c). Consequently, appellant may resort to the writ of habeas corpus ad subjudiciendum. See Commonwealth ex rel. Woods v. Howard, 249 Pa.Superior Ct. 428, 378 A.2d 370 (1944). That well known remedy for deliverance from illegal confinement is particularly suited to the wrong alleged in this case, illegal detention resulting from an incorrect computation of appellant’s sentence by prison officials. Isabell, 503 Pa. at 10 , 467 A.2d at 1291 . (Footnote omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. McNair v. Owens“(a) General rule. Except as provided in subsection (b), an application for habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of detention may.be brought by or on behalf of any person restrained of his liberty within this Commonwealth under any pretense whatsoever. (b) Exception. Where a person is restrained by virtue of sentence after conviction for a criminal offense, the writ of habeas corpus shall not be available if a remedy may be had by post-conviction hearing proceedings authorized by law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Generally, the signed sentencing order, if legal, controls over oral statements of the sentencing judge not incorporated into the signed judgment of sentence”
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.