23 North Carolina opinions name it 2 courts 1994–2025 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by North Carolina courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Anders v. Californiagreen2 sentences2024WALKER Opinion of the Court an Anders brief, see Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and the Court of Appeals found no error at trial. 2018The concept of a no-merit brief, also referred to as an Anders brief, comes from the United States Supreme Court's decision in Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). | 6 | 16 |
Denise H. v. Arizona Department of Economic Securitygreen2 sentences2018This Court decided to adopt what it then considered to be the "majority rule," and directly adopted the reasoning from an Arizona opinion, concluding that " 'counsel for a parent appealing from a juvenile court's severance order has no right to file an Anders brief.' " Id. at 833 , 526 S.E.2d at 503 (quoting Denise H. v. Arizona Dept. of Economic Sec. , 193 Ariz. 257 , 259, 972 P.2d 241 , 243 (1998) ). 2018This Court decided to adopt what it then considered to be the "majority rule," and directly adopted the reasoning from an Arizona opinion, concluding that " 'counsel for a parent appealing from a juvenile court's severance order has no right to file an Anders brief.' " Id. at 833 , 526 S.E.2d at 503 (quoting Denise H. v. Arizona Dept. of Economic Sec. , 193 Ariz. 257 , 259, 972 P.2d 241 , 243 (1998) ). | 3 | 4 |
In Re Harrisongreen2 sentences2018In deciding not to extend Anders protections to appeals from TPR orders, this Court in Harrison reasoned: " 'An attorney for a criminal defendant who believes that his client's appeal is without merit is permitted to file what has become known as an Anders brief.' However, this jurisdiction has not extended the procedures and protections afforded in Anders and Kinch to civil cases." Id. at 832, 526 S.E.2d at 502 (citation omitted). 8 In support of our decision not to extend Anders protections to TPR cases, this Court in Harrison noted: "The majority of states who have addressed this issue have 2018This Court decided to adopt what it then considered to be the "majority rule," and directly adopted the reasoning from an Arizona opinion, concluding that " 'counsel for a parent appealing from a juvenile court's severance order has no right to file an Anders brief.' " Id. at 833 , 526 S.E.2d at 503 (quoting Denise H. v. Arizona Dept. of Economic Sec. , 193 Ariz. 257 , 259, 972 P.2d 241 , 243 (1998) ). | 3 | 3 |
In Re Maygreen2 sentences2018App. 299 , 301, 569 S.E.2d 704 , 707 (2002) ("an attorney for an indigent juvenile adjudicated to be delinquent may file an Anders brief in the appellate courts of this state"). 2018App. 299, 301 , 569 S.E.2d 704, 707 (2002) (“an attorney for an indigent juvenile adjudicated to be delinquent may file an Anders brief in the appellate courts of this state”). | 2 | 3 |
State v. Kinchgreen2 sentences2007Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99 , 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), the juvenile's appellate counsel has filed a brief in which he represents that he "is unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal" and asks that we "conduct a full examination of the record in this case for possible prejudicial error." See also In re May, 153 N.C.App. 299, 301 , 569 S.E.2d 704, 707 (2002) (holding that "an attorney for an indigent juvenile adjudicated to be delinquent may fi 2007Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99 , 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), the juvenile's appellate counsel has filed a brief in which he represents that he "is unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal" and asks that we "conduct a full examination of the record in this case for possible prejudicial error." See also In re May, 153 N.C.App. 299, 301 , 569 S.E.2d 704, 707 (2002) (holding that "an attorney for an indigent juvenile adjudicated to be delinquent may fi | 1 | 4 |
LC v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Dept. v. Alicia P., 127 N.M. 664 , 986 P.2d 460, 462 (1998) (holding the Anders procedure to be applicable in an appeal of an order terminating parental rights); L.C. v. State, 963 P.2d 761, 764 (Utah App. 1998), cert. denied, D.C. v. State, 982 P.2d 88 (Utah 1999) (holding that appointed counsel may file an Anders brief when representing an indigent client in a termination of parental rights appeal); J.K. v. Lee County, 668 So.2d 813, 816 (Ala.Civ.App.1995) (extending the procedures set forth in Anders to "civil cases in which an indigent client has a court-appointed attorney as authorized by 2007Dept. v. Alicia P., 127 N.M. 664 , 986 P.2d 460 , 462 (1998) (holding the Anders procedure to be applicable in an appeal of an order terminating parental rights); L.C. v. State, 963 P.2d 761 , 764 (Utah App. 1998), cert. denied, D.C. v. State, 982 P.2d 88 (Utah 1999) (holding that appointed counsel may file an Anders brief when representing an indigent client in a termination of parental rights appeal); J.K. v. Lee County, 668 So.2d 813 , 816 (Ala.Civ.App.1995) (extending the procedures set forth in Anders to "civil cases in which an indigent client has a court-appointed attorney as authorized | 1 | 3 |
In Re VEgreen2 sentences2007LEXIS 2558 (Conn.Super.Ct.1994) (finding the Anders procedure appropriate if appeal of an order terminating parental rights is sought); In re V.E., 417 Pa.Super. 68 , 611 A.2d 1267, 1275 (1992) (permitting an appointed attorney to withdraw from an appeal of a termination order only after following the Anders procedure); Morris v. Lucas County Children Serv. 2007LEXIS 2558 (Conn.Super.Ct.1994) (finding the Anders procedure appropriate if appeal of an order terminating parental rights is sought); In re V.E., 417 Pa.Super. 68 , 611 A.2d 1267, 1275 (1992) (permitting an appointed attorney to withdraw from an appeal of a termination order only after following the Anders procedure); Morris v. Lucas County Children Serv. | 1 | 2 |
State Ex Rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Alicia P.green2 sentences2007Dept. v. Alicia P., 127 N.M. 664 , 986 P.2d 460, 462 (1998) (holding the Anders procedure to be applicable in an appeal of an order terminating parental rights); L.C. v. State, 963 P.2d 761, 764 (Utah App. 1998), cert. denied, D.C. v. State, 982 P.2d 88 (Utah 1999) (holding that appointed counsel may file an Anders brief when representing an indigent client in a termination of parental rights appeal); J.K. v. Lee County, 668 So.2d 813, 816 (Ala.Civ.App.1995) (extending the procedures set forth in Anders to "civil cases in which an indigent client has a court-appointed attorney as authorized by 2007Dept. v. Alicia P., 127 N.M. 664 , 986 P.2d 460, 462 (1998) (holding the Anders procedure to be applicable in an appeal of an order terminating parental rights); L.C. v. State, 963 P.2d 761, 764 (Utah App. 1998), cert. denied, D.C. v. State, 982 P.2d 88 (Utah 1999) (holding that appointed counsel may file an Anders brief when representing an indigent client in a termination of parental rights appeal); J.K. v. Lee County, 668 So.2d 813, 816 (Ala.Civ.App.1995) (extending the procedures set forth in Anders to "civil cases in which an indigent client has a court-appointed attorney as authorized by | 1 | 2 |
JK v. Lee County Dept. of Human Resourcesgreen2 sentences2007Dept. v. Alicia P., 127 N.M. 664 , 986 P.2d 460, 462 (1998) (holding the Anders procedure to be applicable in an appeal of an order terminating parental rights); L.C. v. State, 963 P.2d 761, 764 (Utah App. 1998), cert. denied, D.C. v. State, 982 P.2d 88 (Utah 1999) (holding that appointed counsel may file an Anders brief when representing an indigent client in a termination of parental rights appeal); J.K. v. Lee County, 668 So.2d 813, 816 (Ala.Civ.App.1995) (extending the procedures set forth in Anders to "civil cases in which an indigent client has a court-appointed attorney as authorized by 2007Dept. v. Alicia P., 127 N.M. 664 , 986 P.2d 460 , 462 (1998) (holding the Anders procedure to be applicable in an appeal of an order terminating parental rights); L.C. v. State, 963 P.2d 761 , 764 (Utah App. 1998), cert. denied, D.C. v. State, 982 P.2d 88 (Utah 1999) (holding that appointed counsel may file an Anders brief when representing an indigent client in a termination of parental rights appeal); J.K. v. Lee County, 668 So.2d 813 , 816 (Ala.Civ.App.1995) (extending the procedures set forth in Anders to "civil cases in which an indigent client has a court-appointed attorney as authorized | 1 | 2 |
Potter v. Californiagreen2 sentences1998Ed. 2d 493 , reh’g denied, 388 U.S. 924 , 18 L. 1994See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 , reh'g denied, 388 U.S. 924 , 87 S.Ct. 2094 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967). | 1 | 2 |
O'Bryan v. Chandlergreen2 sentences1998Ed. 2d 493 , reh’g denied, 388 U.S. 924 , 18 L. 1994See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 , reh'g denied, 388 U.S. 924 , 87 S.Ct. 2094 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967). | 1 | 2 |
In re L.E.M.green1 sentence2025In re L.E.M., 372 N.C. 396, 402 (2019). -5- IN RE: W.G.T., M.V.T. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Nevillsgreen1 sentence2024Ct. App. June 2, 2020) (unpublished) (reviewing an Anders brief after the defendant entered an open plea); State v. Nevills, 158 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
In re N.B.green1 sentence2018We can find no case in which 10 Although the holding in Harrison has been characterized as one denying Anders review in civil cases, see In re N.B., N.B., J.B., N.B., & J.B., 183 N.C. | 1 | 1 |
In Re DESgreen2 sentences2018In re D.E.S. , 135 S.W.3d 326 , 329 (Tex. App.-14th Dist. 2004) (citations omitted). 2018In re D.E.S., 135 S.W.3d 326, 329 (Tex. App. – 14th Dist. 2004) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Kent v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2002Although a juvenile delinquency proceeding is not for all purposes treated as a criminal proceedings, the United States Supreme Court has held a juvenile alleged to be delinquent is entitled to "the essentials of due process." Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 562 , 86 S.Ct. 1045, 1058 , 16 L.Ed.2d 84, 97-98 (1966). 2002Although a juvenile delinquency proceeding is not for all purposes treated as a criminal proceedings, the United States Supreme Court has held a juvenile alleged to be delinquent is entitled to "the essentials of due process." Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 562 , 86 S.Ct. 1045, 1058 , 16 L.Ed.2d 84, 97-98 (1966). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Mayfieldgreen2 sentences2000“An attorney for a criminal defendant who believes that his client’s appeal is without merit is permitted to file what has become known as an Anders brief.” State v. Mayfield, 115 N.C. 2000App. 725, 726 , 446 S.E.2d 150, 152 (1994) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
DCFS v. Natural Parents of JBgreen1 sentence2000See Department of Children and Family Services v. Natural Parents of J.B., 736 So.2d 111, 114 (Fla. App. 1999) (Anders procedures do not apply in termination of parental rights cases); County of Kern v. Dillier, 69 Cal. App. 4th 1412, 1419 , 82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 318, 322 (1999) (‘Anders’s ‘prophylactic’ procedures are designed solely to protect the indigent criminal defendant’s right, under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses, to the assistance of appellate counsel appointed by the state”); Denise H. v. Arizona Dept. of Economic Sec., 193 Ariz. 257, 259 , 972 P.2d 2 | 1 | 1 |
County of Kern v. Dilliergreen2 sentences2000See Department of Children and Family Services v. Natural Parents of J.B., 736 So.2d 111, 114 (Fla. App. 1999) (Anders procedures do not apply in termination of parental rights cases); County of Kern v. Dillier, 69 Cal. App. 4th 1412, 1419 , 82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 318, 322 (1999) (‘Anders’s ‘prophylactic’ procedures are designed solely to protect the indigent criminal defendant’s right, under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses, to the assistance of appellate counsel appointed by the state”); Denise H. v. Arizona Dept. of Economic Sec., 193 Ariz. 257, 259 , 972 P.2d 2 2000See Department of Children and Family Services v. Natural Parents of J.B., 736 So.2d 111, 114 (Fla. App. 1999) (Anders procedures do not apply in termination of parental rights cases); County of Kern v. Dillier, 69 Cal. App. 4th 1412, 1419 , 82 Cal. Rptr. 2d 318, 322 (1999) (‘Anders’s ‘prophylactic’ procedures are designed solely to protect the indigent criminal defendant’s right, under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses, to the assistance of appellate counsel appointed by the state”); Denise H. v. Arizona Dept. of Economic Sec., 193 Ariz. 257, 259 , 972 P.2d 2 | 1 | 1 |
New York Central R. Co. v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1994See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 , reh'g denied, 388 U.S. 924 , 87 S.Ct. 2094 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
LC v. Stategreen2 sentences2007Dept. v. Alicia P., 127 N.M. 664 , 986 P.2d 460, 462 (1998) (holding the Anders procedure to be applicable in an appeal of an order terminating parental rights); L.C. v. State, 963 P.2d 761, 764 (Utah App. 1998), cert. denied, D.C. v. State, 982 P.2d 88 (Utah 1999) (holding that appointed counsel may file an Anders brief when representing an indigent client in a termination of parental rights appeal); J.K. v. Lee County, 668 So.2d 813, 816 (Ala.Civ.App.1995) (extending the procedures set forth in Anders to "civil cases in which an indigent client has a court-appointed attorney as authorized by 2007Dept. v. Alicia P., 127 N.M. 664 , 986 P.2d 460 , 462 (1998) (holding the Anders procedure to be applicable in an appeal of an order terminating parental rights); L.C. v. State, 963 P.2d 761 , 764 (Utah App. 1998), cert. denied, D.C. v. State, 982 P.2d 88 (Utah 1999) (holding that appointed counsel may file an Anders brief when representing an indigent client in a termination of parental rights appeal); J.K. v. Lee County, 668 So.2d 813 , 816 (Ala.Civ.App.1995) (extending the procedures set forth in Anders to "civil cases in which an indigent client has a court-appointed attorney as authorized | 1 | 3 |
L.C. v. Stateyellow1 sentence2000But see L.C. v. State, 963 P.2d 761 , 348 Utah Adv. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Grundler
green
2 sentences2022Grundler, 251 N.C. at 189 , 111 S.E.2d at 9 . ¶ 24 This issue should have presented to this Court, if at all under an Anders brief. 2022Grundler, 251 N.C. at 189 , 111 S.E.2d at 9 . ¶ 24 This issue should have presented to this Court, if at all under an Anders brief. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
In Re May
green
2 sentences2007Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99 , 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), the juvenile's appellate counsel has filed a brief in which he represents that he "is unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal" and asks that we "conduct a full examination of the record in this case for possible prejudicial error." See also In re May, 153 N.C.App. 299, 301 , 569 S.E.2d 704, 707 (2002) (holding that "an attorney for an indigent juvenile adjudicated to be delinquent may fi 2007Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and State v. Kinch, 314 N.C. 99 , 331 S.E.2d 665 (1985), the juvenile's appellate counsel has filed a brief in which he represents that he "is unable to identify any issue with sufficient merit to support a meaningful argument for relief on appeal" and asks that we "conduct a full examination of the record in this case for possible prejudicial error." See also In re May, 153 N.C.App. 299, 301 , 569 S.E.2d 704, 707 (2002) (holding that "an attorney for an indigent juvenile adjudicated to be delinquent may fi | 2 | 2007–2007 |
In Re NB
green
2 sentences2018This meant that "counsel for a parent appealing an order terminating parental rights did not have a right to file an Anders brief." Id. 2018But we "urge[d] our Supreme Court or the General Assembly to reconsider this issue." Id. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1
green
2 sentences2018The entire purpose of the Anders brief and the court's "independent review" of the record (the Anders opinion doesn't actually call it that) is to assist the court "in making the critical determination whether the appeal is indeed so frivolous that counsel should be permitted to withdraw." McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin , 486 U.S. 429 , 439, 108 S.Ct. 1895 , 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). 2018The entire purpose of the Anders brief and the court's "independent review" of the record (the Anders opinion doesn't actually call it that) is to assist the court "in making the critical determination whether the appeal is indeed so frivolous that counsel should be permitted to withdraw." McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin , 486 U.S. 429 , 439, 108 S.Ct. 1895 , 100 L.Ed.2d 440 (1988). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Knight v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
green
1 sentence2017"An employee seeking indemnity benefits pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Act has, at the outset, two very general options." Knight v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 149 N.C. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In Re GAULT
green
1 sentence2002II The Anders court held that a copy of the "counsel's brief should be furnished the indigent and time allowed [her] to raise any points that [she] chooses." Anders, 386 U.S. at 744 , 87 S.Ct. at 1400 , 18 L.Ed.2d at 498 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Bennett
green
2 sentences1998State v. Bennett, 102 N.C. 1998App. 797 , 404 S.E.2d 4 (1991) (sanctioning defendant’s counsel for failure to file a complete record with his Anders brief); see also Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 18 L. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.