Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 537 Pa. 581 - Commonwealth v. Rogers

Commonwealth v. Rogers’s Empirical Analysis

1994

Citation profile

40
cited by 40 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District (2000), Commonwealth v. Albrecht (1998)

3 federal appellate · 35 state decisions

1601994200020102020decided

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 Faretta v. California · Commonwealth v. Ellis · Commonwealth v. Bryant · Commonwealth v. Davis · Commonwealth v. Monica

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

  1. “A represented appellant may petition to terminate his representation; he may, acting pursuant to the rules of criminal procedure, proceed on his own behalf. Conversely, he may elect to allow counsel to take his appeal, but, should counsel not prevail, assert counsel's ineffectiveness at a later time and, thus indirectly, assert the claims he would have made on direct appeal. The only thing he may not do is confuse and overburden the court by his own pro se filings of briefs at the same time his counsel is filing briefs on his behalf.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “simply because he wishes to file pro se appellate briefs”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “It is well settled that a criminal defendant or appellant has the right to proceed pro se at trial and through appellate proceedings. [Citations.]”
    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.