Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 553 Pa. 424 - Commonwealth v. Wells

Commonwealth v. Wells’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
July 2023
most recently cited

17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently July 2023

17 state decisions

901998200020102020decided

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 Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · Flanagan v. United States · New Jersey v. New York · United States v. Ryan · 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(a) General rule. An appeal may be taken as of right from a collateral order of an administrative agency or lower court. (b) Definition. A collateral order is an order [1] separable from and collateral to the main cause of action [2] where the right involved is too important to be denied review and [3] the question presented is such that if review is postponed until final judgment in the case, the claim will be irreparably lost.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[Well’s] claim that he is entitled to “conflict-free” PCRA counsel will not be irreparably lost if the order denying the Petition to Withdraw is not reviewed at this time. Since Appellant has a right of appeal if the PCRA court denies his petition, the order denying the Petition to Withdraw, and consequently the merits of the conflict issue, can be reviewed if or when [Wells] files an appeal from the court’s PCRA decision. If it is determined that the PCRA court improperly failed to remove PCRA counsel due to a conflict of interest, any right to conflict-free PCRA counsel is not lost since the defendant may be granted a new PCRA hearing and new counsel. Thus, since [Well’s] claimed right would not be irreparably lost if review of the order were postponed until final judgment, the court’s order denying the Petition to Withdraw is not appealable under the collateral order doctrine.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “(a) General Rule. — Except as prescribed in subdivision (d) and (e) of this rule, an appeal may be taken as of right from any final order of an administrative agency or lower court. (b) Definition of Final Order. — A final order is any order that: (1) disposes of all claims and of all parties; or (2) is expressly defined as a final order by statute; or (3) is entered as a final order pursuant to subsection (c) of this rule.”
    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.