Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 582 Pa. 52 - Commonwealth v. Davido

Commonwealth v. Davido’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

70
cited by 70 later decisions
4
states following
September 2022
most recently cited

70 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably Commonwealth v. Cousar (2007), Commonwealth v. Hutchinson (2011)

70 state decisions

360200520102020decided

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 Faretta v. California · Lockett v. Ohio · Simmons v. South Carolina · Martinez v. Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District · Commonwealth v. Zettlemoyer

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

  1. “[T]he inquiry surrounding whether a request to proceed pro se is unequivocal is fact intensive and should be based on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the request.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “We do not believe [the defendant’s] claim [of counsel’s ineffectiveness] falls within the Bomar exception to reviewing claims of ineffectiveness on direct appeal. See Commonwealth v. Bomar, 573 Pa. 426 , 826 A.2d 831 (2003). Although Appellant raised this claim in his Rule 1925 statement and the trial court addressed this ineffectiveness issue in its Opinion Pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925, there has been no record developed “de voted to the ineffectiveness claims.” Bomar, 826 A.2d at 854 . Rather, the trial court relied on the evidence from the existing record in support of denying this claim. Accordingly, we believe this claim is better suited to collateral review.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The weight of the evidence is exclusively for the finder of fact, which is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence, and to assess the credibility of the witnesses. Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 580 Pa. 303, 310-312 , 860 A.2d 102, 107-108 , 2004 WL 2363726 , (Pa.2004). "Questions concerning inconsistent testimony and improper motive go to the credibility of the witnesses.” Id. To the extent that Appellant is challenging the weight of the medical evidence, this court will not substitute its judgment for the finder of fact.”
    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.