Commonwealth v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 228 state decisions

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

1. “The PCRA court’s failure to draft an opinion addressing the claims [of the petitioner] constitutes an abdication of the trial court’s duty which cannot be condoned. While the PCRA court undoubtedly intended only to conserve its judicial energies, this manner of conservation is inappropriate.... The obvious purpose of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) is to facilitate appellate review of a particular trial court order. Additionally, however, the rule fulfills an important policy consideration by providing to disputing parties, as well as to the public at large, the legal basis for a judicial decision. The trial court’s adoption of one party’s advocacy brief, in lieu of an independent judicial opinion, deprives the parties and the public of the independent reasoning of the court. This is especially true for the public because the briefs themselves are normally not as accessible as a judicial opinion may be.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 1999 Pa. Super. 198 - Commonwealth v. Glover · Commonwealth v. DeJesus

2. “requires that we remand the entire matter to the PCRA court for an opinion which addresses all the relevant issues and which states the court's reasons for denying relief”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Commonwealth v. Rainey · Commonwealth v. Sneed