Commonwealth v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 61 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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Subsection (iii) of Section 9545[ (b)(1) ] has two requirements. First, it provides that the right asserted is a constitutional right that was recognized by the Su preme Court of the United States or [the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania] after the time provided in this section. Second, it provides that the right “has been held” by “that court” to apply retroactively. Thus, a petitioner must prove that there is a “new” constitutional right and that the right “has been held” by that court to apply retroactively. The language “has been held” is in the past tense. These words mean that the action has already occurred, i.e., “that court” has already held the new constitutional right to be retroactive to cases on collateral review. By employing the past tense in writing this provision, the legislature clearly intended that the right was already recognized at the time the petition was filed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 2014 Pa. Super. 27 - Commonwealth v. Seskey

2. “Since, by its own terms, the Miller holding does not categorically bar a penalty for a class of offenders, it is procedural and not substantive for purposes of Teague.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Songster v. Beard