Commonwealth v. Collins’s Empirical Analysis
2005
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 162 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 170 later decisions — most recently November 2025 · most notably Commonwealth v. Spotz (2011), Commonwealth v. Carson (2006)
4 federal appellate · 162 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)
Relies on Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Crawford v. Washington · Bruton v. United States · Ohio v. Roberts
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 170 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]n issue has been previously litigated if ... the highest appellate court in which the petitioner could have had review as a matter of right has ruled on the merits of the issue.” Id. § 9544(a)(2).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“refers to the discrete legal ground that was forwarded on direct appeal and would have entitled the defendant to relief”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“refers to the discrete legal ground that was forwarded on direct appeal and would have entitled the defendant to relief; ineffectiveness claims are distinct from claims raised on direct appeal and must be treated as wholly independent of underlying claim of error). We will address Martin's claims under the Pierce ineffectiveness standard to the extent review is possible from the record, and "will remand this matter to the PCRA court for further consideration only if we find that the claims that were considered `previously litigated' by the PCRA court are in need of further elucidation and cannot be evaluated by this [C]ourt.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Com. v. Martin
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.