Commonwealth v. Murray’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

91 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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Any petition under this subchapter, including a second or subsequent petition, shall be filed within one year of the date the judgment becomes final, unless the petition alleges and the petitioner proves that: (i) the failure to raise the claim previously was the result of interference by government officials with the presentation of the claim in violation of the Constitution or laws of this Commonwealth or the Constitution or laws of the United States; (ii) the facts upon which the claim is predicated were unknown to the petitioner and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of due diligence; or (iii) the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States or the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania after the time period provided in this section and has been held to apply retroactively.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2004 Pa. Super. 133 - Commonwealth v. Beck · Commonwealth v. Brown

2. “becomes final at the conclusion of direct review, including discretionary review in the Supreme Court of the United States and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, or at the expiration of time for seeking the review.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2016 Pa. Super. 148 - Commonwealth v. Brown · 2016 Pa. Super. 117 - Commonwealth v. Ward-Green

3. “Appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a timely direct appeal is similar to the ineffectiveness claim brought by the petitioner in Commonwealth v. Lantzy, [ ]. In Lantzy , this Court held that a claim brought in a PCRA petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to file a requested direct appeal constitutes a cognizable claim for relief under the PCRA. Id. at [ ], 736 A.2d at 572 . However, unlike Lantzy , Appellant filed his pro se PCRA petition outside of the one year filing period provided for in the PCRA’s timeliness requirements. Thus, we emphasize that it is Appellant’s failure to file his PCRA petition in a timely manner, and not the nature of his ineffectiveness claim which is fatal to the success of his appeal from the dismissal of his petition.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2001 Pa. Super. 134 - Commonwealth v. Zuniga