Commonwealth v. Abraham

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that, “Under Padilla, it is unclear if the direct/collateral analysis is still viable,” and holding that counsel was obliged to warn his client of the loss of his pension rights as a direct consequence of pleading guilty
• “[T]here is no independent finding of scienter needed to trigger forfeiture [of pension benefits]. There is an element of scienter, but that is found in the underlying criminal act....”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

6 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Commonwealth v. Wah
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2012-03-01· cited 382×
• Commonwealth v. Garcia
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2011-06-17· cited 231×
• Commonwealth v. Masker
  Superior Court of Pennsylvania· 2011-12-15· cited 62×
• Commonwealth v. Abraham
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 2012-12-07· cited 44×
• Johnson v. Allegheny Intermediate Unit
  Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania· 2012-12-13· cited 32×
• Jones v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole
  Third Circuit· 2012-07-25· cited 10×

Cites

2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Strickland v. Washington
  Supreme Court· 1984-06-25· cited 123,578×
• Padilla v. Kentucky
  Supreme Court· 2010-03-31· cited 5,017×