Commonwealth v. Hagood’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 state decisions

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

1. “The stated purpose of the Act is to provide relief from convictions and sentences imposed without due process of law, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9542, not review of prior post conviction proceedings. Thus, persons currently serving sentences in this Commonwealth may, consistent with the Act, file one and only one PCHA petition. Failure to raise all claims that might have been raised in the first PCHA petition constitutes a waiver which will only be avoided by `extraordinary circumstances,' 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9544(b). Extraordinary circumstances have been variously defined by members of this Court, see, e.g., this author's dissenting opinion in Commonwealth v. Watlington, 491 Pa. 241, 246 , 420 A.2d 431, 434 (1980); see also the opinion of Mr. Justice Larsen in Commonwealth v. Alexander, 495 Pa. 26 , 432 A.2d 182 (1981). However, this case does not present any `extraordinary circumstances' sufficiently compelling to persuade us that the conduct of an evidentiary hearing on appellee's third PCHA petition is warranted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 375 Pa. Super. 437 - Commonwealth v. Miller

2. “Of course, appellee's petitions have raised all issues in the context of the `layered' claims of ineffectiveness prescribed in Commonwealth v. Hubbard, 472 Pa. 259 , 372 A.2d 687 (1977). Appellee is here represented by his seventh attorney.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 375 Pa. Super. 437 - Commonwealth v. Miller