Commonwealth v. Holmes’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 state decisions

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

1. “Whether the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel which are the exclusive subject of this nunc pro tunc direct appeal: (1) are reviewable on direct appeal under Commonwealth v. Bomar [ 573 Pa. 426 ], 826 A.2d 831 (Pa.2003); (2) should instead be deferred to collateral review under the general rule in Commonwealth v. Grant [ 572 Pa. 48 ], 813 A.2d 726 (Pa.2002) that defendants should wait until the collateral review phase to raise claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; or (3) should instead be deemed reviewable on direct appeal only if accompanied by a specific waiver of the right to pursue a first PCRA petition as of right. See Commonwealth v. Wright [ 599 Pa. 270 ], 961 A.2d 119 , 148 n. 22 (Pa.2008) (“Prolix collateral claims should not be reviewed on post-verdict motions unless the defendant waives his right to PCRA review... see also Commonwealth v. Liston [ 602 Pa. 10 ], 977 A.2d 1089, 1095-1101 (Pa. 2009) (Castille, C.J., concurring, joined by Saylor, J., & Eakin, J.).”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2011 Pa. Super. 191 - Commonwealth v. Blye · 2011 Pa. Super. 147 - Commonwealth v. Barnett