Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 601 Pa. 103 - Commonwealth v. Ligons

Commonwealth v. Ligons’s Empirical Analysis

2009

Citation profile

92
cited by 92 later decisions
1
states following
March 2021
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 88 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably Commonwealth v. Holmes (2013), Commonwealth v. Hutchinson (2011)

2 federal appellate · 88 state decisions

880200920102020decided

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 Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Batson v. Kentucky · Williams v. Taylor · Witherspoon v. Illinois

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

  1. “(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 by that court to apply retroactively.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[generally, the question of whether the PCRA court erred in its determination that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to investigate and present sufficient mitigating evidence depends upon a myriad of factors, including the reasonableness of counsel's investigation, the mitigation evidence that was actually presented, and the mitigation evidence that could have been presented.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[p]rejudice is demonstrated when it is probable that at least one juror would have accepted at least one mitigating circumstance and found that it outweighed the aggravating circumstance found.”
    2 later decisions 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.