Commonwealth v. Morales’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 137 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 156 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably Commonwealth v. Fahy (1999), Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal (1998)
11 federal appellate · 137 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 Brady v. State of Maryland · Wainwright v. Witt · Trident Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. · Paulussen v. Herion · Delta Airlines, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance
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 156 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) That the petitioner has been convicted of a crime under the laws of this Commonwealth and is at the time relief is granted: (i) currently serving a sentence of imprisonment[.] (2) That the conviction or sentence resulted from one or more of the following: (ii) Ineffective assistance of counsel, which in the circumstances of the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he record in this case clearly supports the PCRA court’s findings that Taylor made the decision not to present evidence in the penalty phase and that he did so contrary to the recommendations and advice of trial counsel. In addition to Taylor’s having had the benefit of the advice of trial counsel, the trial court in various colloquies also advised him of his rights and probed whether his decisions were rational and properly informed. Like trial counsel, the trial court specifically advised Taylor of his right to defend against imposition of the death penalty, including the right to present mitigating circumstances, and that the likely result of the failure to do so would be the imposition of a sentence of death. Under these circumstances, counsel cannot be deemed ineffective for failing to override Taylor’s decision not to present such evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Taylor v. Horn“To be entitled to relief under the PCRA, a petitioner must plead and prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the conviction or sentence arose from one or more of the errors enumerated in 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(2), and that the issues raised in the petition have not been previously litigated or waived. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9543(a)(3). An allegation of error is waived “if the petitioner could have raised it but failed to do so before trial, at trial, during unitary review, on appeal or in a prior state postconviction proceeding.” 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 9544(b).”
1 later decision 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.