Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 554 Pa. 31 - Commonwealth v. Albrecht

Commonwealth v. Albrecht’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

180
cited by 180 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 144 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 180 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2019 · most notably Commonwealth v. Grant (2002), Beard Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections et al. v. Banks (2004)

17 federal appellate · 144 state decisions

1110199820002010decided

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 Ake v. Oklahoma · Pennsylvania v. Finley · Michigan v. Tyler · Mills v. Maryland · Commonwealth v. Clair

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

  1. “ever-widening application of the doctrine has, in effect, virtually eliminated any semblance of finality in capital cases, and frustrated the efficient use of the resources of the court.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “`practice' to decline to apply ordinary waiver principles in capital cases,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “On the basis of the record presented in the PCRA court, Appellant has failed to establish that the court abused its discretion in denying his application for expert witness funds. Due process principles did not require the PCRA court to provide public funds for expert assistance because nothing submitted by Appellant established that the scientific knowledge could have been exploited under the facts of this case. See Ake v. Oklahoma, supra. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s order denying Appellant’s request.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.