Supreme Court of Pennsylvania· 10/19/2001

Commonwealth v. Williams

Citations

782 A.2d 517
566 Pa. 553
2001 Pa. LEXIS 2283

How courts have described this case

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

holding that the PCRA court must provide “sufficiently specific reasons for the disposition such that the potential for amendment may be reasonably evaluated by counsel”
holding that the PCRA court must provide “sufficiently specific reasons for the disposition such that the potential for amendment may be reasonably evaluated by counsel”
explaining that \affirmance of the PCRA court's disposition... is not appropriate in view of the absence of an adequate opinion\
explaining that “affirmance of the PCRA court’s disposition ... is not appropriate in view of the absence of an adequate opinion”
explaining that the practical effect of the legislative scheme of the PCRA as interpreted by this Court is to limit the opportunity for collateral relief in most cases to a single, counseled petition
explaining that the practical effect of the legislative scheme of the PCRA as interpreted by this Court is to limit the opportunity for collateral relief in most cases to a single, counseled petition

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Flaherty, Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

91 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

48 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.