Commonwealth v. Lopez’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably Commonwealth v. Spotz (2000), Commonwealth v. Robinson (2004)
43 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 Bruton v. United States · Duren v. Missouri · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · Gray v. Maryland · Tennessee v. Street
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The law presumes that trial counsel was effective, and Appellant has the burden of proving otherwise. Commonwealth v. Baez, [ 554 Pa. 66 ] 720 A.2d 711, 733 (Pa.1998). In order to prove that he was rendered ineffective assistance of trial counsel, Appellant must demonstrate that the underlying claim is of arguable merit, that his counsel had no reasonable basis for proceeding as he did, and that he was prejudiced by his counsel’s ineffectiveness (i.e., there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different but for counsel’s ineffectiveness). See Commonwealth v. Craver, 547 Pa. 17, 22 , 688 A.2d 691, 693-94 (1997) (citations omitted); Commonwealth v. Howard, 538 Pa. 86, 93 , 645 A.2d 1300, 1304 (1994).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]o establish a prima facie case that a jury pool selection method violates the Sixth Amendment, [the defendant] must show: (1) the group allegedly excluded is a distinctive group in the community; (2) representation of this group in the pool from which juries are selected is unfair and unreasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) the under-representation is due to the systematic exclusion of the group in the jury selection process.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Com. v. Martin“view[ed] the United States Supreme Court's decision in Gray as a rational application of the principles enunciated in Bruton rather than as a change in the law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.