Commonwealth v. Abdul-Salaam

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “[an] action has already occurred, i.e., ‘that court’ has already held the new constitutional right to be retroactive to cases on collateral review[;]” in writing section 9545(b)(2)(iii
• holding that a new rule of constitutional law formulated by the United States Supreme Court does not satisfy section 9545(b)(1)(iii) unless the Supreme Court has specifically held that right to apply retroactively
• holding: “[T]he language ‘has been held’ in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii) means that a retroactivity determination must exist at the time that the petition is filed”
• noting that the “language ‘has been held’ in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii) means that a retroactivity determination must exist at the time that the Petition is filed.”
• noting that the “language ‘has been held’ in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9545(b)(1)(iii) means that a retroactivity determination must exist at the time that the Petition is filed.”
• holding that in order to satisfy section 9545(b)(1)(iii

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).