Commonwealth v. Alderman

How courts have described this case

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

• it was not necessary for lawyer to conduct independent investigation of facts where lawyer knew beyond a reasonable doubt certain witness would perjure himself if called to testify and defendant’s change of story was implausible
• it was not necessary for lawyer to conduct independent investigation of facts where lawyer knew beyond a reasonable doubt certain witness would perjure himself if called to testify and defendant's change of story was implausible

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

7 cases in this archive cite this case.

• People v. Johnson
  California Court of Appeal· 1998-03-24· cited 33×
• Gill v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1994-02-16· cited 22×
• State v. Hischke
  Supreme Court of Iowa· 2002-01-24· cited 17×
• DeHaven v. State
  District Court of Appeal of Florida· 1993-05-14· cited 9×
• Commonwealth v. Bolden
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1987-12-07· cited 8×
• Commonwealth v. Mascitti
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1987-12-02· cited 8×
• In re Anonymous No. 140 D.B 89
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1993-05-13

Cites

2 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Commonwealth Ex Rel. Washington v. Maroney
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1967-11-14· cited 1,351×
• Commonwealth v. Bronson
  Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 1974-07-01· cited 17×