Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 566 Pa. 312 - Commonwealth v. Tilley

Commonwealth v. Tilley’s Empirical Analysis

2001

Citation profile

81
cited by 81 later decisions
1
states following
September 2024
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 78 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Commonwealth v. Grant (2002), Commonwealth v. Freeman (2003)

3 federal appellate · 78 state decisions

610200120102020decided

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 Batson v. Kentucky · Powers v. Ohio · Alabama v. Bozeman · In re Jones · Commonwealth v. Cabeza

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

  1. “(1) that the [underlying] claim is of arguable merit; (2) that counsel had no reasonable strategic basis for his or her action or inaction; and, (3) that, but for the errors and omissions of counsel, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Case law is clear ... that in order for a new rule of law to apply retroactively to a case pending on direct appeal, the issue had to be preserved at `all stages of adjudication up to and including the direct appeal.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “When a court or other government unit, in making an interlocutory order in a matter in which its final order would be within the jurisdiction of an appellate court, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the matter, it shall so state in such order. The appellate court may thereupon, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such interlocutory order.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.