Com. v. Washington’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 86 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently December 2025 · most notably Commonwealth v. Johnson (2009), Commonwealth v. Ali (2010)
2 federal appellate · 86 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 Strickland v. Washington · Brady v. State of Maryland · Batson v. Kentucky · Williams v. Taylor · Bruton v. United States
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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““First, that the underlying claim has arguable merit.... Second, that counsel had no reasonable basis for his action or inaction. ... In determining whether counsel’s action was reasonable, we do not question whether there were other more logical courses of action which counsel could have pursued; rather, we must examine whether counsel’s decisions had any reasonable basis. ... Finally, ‘Appellant must establish that he has been prejudiced by counsel’s ineffectiveness; in order to meet this burden, he must show that “but for the act or omission in question, the outcome of the proceedings would have been different.” ’... A claim of ineffectiveness may be denied by a showing that the petitioner’s evidence fails to meet any of these prongs . . . .” Commonwealth v. Washington, 592 Pa. 698, 712 , 927 A.2d 586, 594 (2007) (citing Commonwealth v. Pierce, 515 Pa. 153, 159 , 527 A.2d 973, 975 (1987).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“(1) the witness existed; (2) the witness was available to testify for the defense; (3) counsel knew of, or should have known of, the existence of the witness; (4) the witness was willing to testify for the defense; and (5) the absence of the testimony of the witness was so prejudicial as to have denied the defendant a fair trial.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage“Our standard of review for issues arising from the denial of PCRA relief is well-settled. We must determine whether the PCRA court's ruling is supported by the record and free of legal error.”
3 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.