State v. Sutton’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 state decisions

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]f counsel finds his case to be wholly frivolous, after a conscientious examination of it, he should so advise the court and request permission to withdraw. That request must, however, be accompanied by a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal. A copy of counsel's brief should be furnished the indigent and time allowed him to raise any points that he chooses; the court — not counsel — then proceeds, after a full examination of all the proceedings, to decide whether the case is wholly frivolous. If it so finds it may grant counsel's request to withdraw and dismiss the appeal insofar as federal requirements are concerned, or proceed to a decision on the merits, if state law so requires. On the other hand, if it finds any of the legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous) it must, prior to decision, afford the indigent the assistance of counsel to argue the appeal.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 360 Wis. 2d 12 - State v. Cassius A. Foster

2. “After submission of the no-merit report and the response, if the defendant provides one, the court of appeals follows the requirement of Anders : it "not only examines the no-merit report but also conducts its own scrutiny of the record to find out whether there are any potential appellate issues of arguable merit."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 360 Wis. 2d 12 - State v. Cassius A. Foster

3. “[Wisconsin Stat. § 802.09] is intended to facilitate the disposition of litigation on the merits and to subordinate the importance of pleadings. It provides maximum opportunity for each claim to be decided on its merits rather than on procedural technicalities.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Negrete