Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 569 Pa. 622 - Commonwealth v. Eller

Commonwealth v. Eller’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

75
cited by 75 later decisions
1
states following
September 2024
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 54 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Schlueter III v. Varner (2004), Commonwealth v. Foster (2011)

9 federal appellate · 54 state decisions

500200220102020decided

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 Anders v. California · Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc. · Commonwealth v. Lantzy · Commonwealth v. Fahy · 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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “application of Lantzy to petitioners who sought nunc pro tunc relief before that case was decided does not operate in an unlawfully retroactive fashion”). Pennsylvania law thus did not (and does not) recognize extra-PCRA petitions like Brown's notice of appeal nunc pro tunc. Because such petitions are improperly filed as a matter of state law, it seems doubtful that they may be deemed”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “This subchapter provides for an action by which persons convicted of crimes they did not commit and persons serving illegal sentences may obtain collateral relief. The action established in this subchapter shall be the sole means of obtaining collateral relief and encompasses all other common law and statutory remedies for the same purpose that exist when this subchapter takes effect, including habeas corpus and coram nobis.”
    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.