Commonwealth v. Petroski’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently August 2021
14 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
Relies on Commonwealth v. Pierce · Commonwealth v. Pettus · 454 Pa. Super. 428 - Commonwealth v. Yager · Commonwealth v. Stock · Commonwealth v. Morris
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[P]ost-eonviction relief was traditionally available to a petitioner who established that his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal as requested. The majority found, however, that such relief was statutorily implicated only pursuant to the terms of former Section 9543(a)(2)(v), which provided petitioners with relief where their judgments of sentence resulted from a violation of the United States Constitution or federal law which would require the granting of federal habeas corpus relief. From the repeal of former Section 9543(a)(2)(v), which occurred in connection with the 1995 amendments to the PCRA, the majority inferred that the General Assembly intended to narrow the availability of post-conviction relief in conformity with the act’s express purpose, namely, the provision of relief to persons who are innocent or are serving illegal sentences. Subsequent to the elimination of Section 9543(a)(2)(v), the majority found, the claim of a petitioner in Lantzy’s circumstance must be assessed under Section 9543(a)(2)(ii) of the PCRA which provides relief where a petitioner pleads and proves by a preponderance of the evidence that his conviction resulted from ineffective assistance of counsel which, in the circumstances of the particular case, so undermined the truth-determining process that no rehable adjudication of guilt or innocence could have taken place. Relying upon several Superior Court panel decisions, the majority interpreted Section 9543(a)(2)(h) a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[t]his Court may affirm a trial court order when it is correct on any legal ground, regardless of the legal basis on which the trial court relied.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Com. v. PRIVOLOS
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.