Commonwealth v. Lassiter’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 68 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably Commonwealth v. Cox (2009), Winslow-Quattlebaum v. Maryland Insurance Group (2000)
6 federal appellate · 68 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 Tison v. Arizona · American Petrofina Co. v. Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union Local No. 4-23 · Commonwealth v. LaCava · Commonwealth v. Edmiston · Commonwealth v. Stair
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 79 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The standard of review for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel is well-settled in the Commonwealth. A criminal defendant sustains a claim of ineffectiveness of counsel by proving by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) that the underlying claim is of arguable merit; (2) that counsel's performance had no reasonable basis; and (3) that counsel's ineffectiveness worked to his prejudice. Commonwealth v. LaCava, 542 Pa. 160, 178 , 666 A.2d 221, 229 (1995) (citing Commonwealth v. Edmiston, 535 Pa. 210, 237 , 634 A.2d 1078, 1092 (1993)). Assuming appellant can establish counsel's ineffectiveness through the three-pronged test set forth above, appellant must then demonstrate under the [Post conviction Relief Act] that the ineffective assistance of counsel "so undermined the truth-determining process that no reliable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place." [5]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“actions undertaken in subsequent sessions of the Legislature are relevant in interpreting a statute which was passed in a previous session of the Legislature.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The aggravating circumstance at issue requires that the defendant “committed” a killing while in the perpetration of a felony. Webster’s defines “commit” as follows: “[t]o do or perpetrate (an offense or crime).” Webster’s New World Dictionary (2d ed. 1996). The word “do” is thus defined: “to perform; to carry out; fulfill; to bring to completion; finish.” Id. The word “perpetrate” is defined as “to do or perform.” Id. Resolving ambiguity in the definition of the word “commit” in favor of the accused, as we must pursuant to the rule of lenity, we conclude that, as used in the statute at issue, the word “commit” requires a defendant to have performed the murder herself in the sense of bringing it to completion or finishing it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Commonwealth v. Cox
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.