581 So. 2d 149 - In Re Anders Briefs’s Empirical Analysis
1991
Citation profile
121 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 123 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably 802 So. 2d 1113 - Pullen v. State (2001), 923 So. 2d 486 - Jones v. State (2006)
121 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Anders v. California · Penson v. Ohio · Douglas v. People of State of California · McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1 · 503 So. 2d 321 - State v. Causey
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 123 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[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.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage“[I]ndigents in their first appeal as of right should not lose their Anders rights simply because counsel are able to identify some relatively minor sentencing issues in “no merit” briefs.... Therefore, appellate courts are to follow the Anders procedure fully even when costs or other minor sentencing errors are raised in “no merit” briefs[.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the Anders procedure ... even when costs or other minor sentencing errors are raised in `no merit' briefs”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.