523 Texas opinions name it 3 courts 1991–2025 91 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Texas 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bledsoe v. Stategreen2 sentences2025We are “not required to review the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response.” Id. at 827 . 2025We are “not required to review the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response.” Id. at 827 . | 480 | 516 |
In Re DDgreen2 sentences2023Id. (citing Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827 (Tex. Crim. 2022Id. | 2 | 6 |
Hanley v. Hanleygreen1 sentence2015Any issue that is "arguable on [the] merits" is, by definition, not frivolous. 19 The United States Supreme Court has defined a "wholly frivolous" appeal as one that "lacks any basis in law or fact." 2° "An appeal is 'frivolous' when 'the trial court's ruling[s were] correct' or 'the appellant was not harmed by the ruling[s].'" 21 Once counsel has determined that an appeal is frivolous, counsel must file a brief identifying anything in 17 See Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. 18 Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827-28 (Tex. Crim. | 1 | 1 |
Jeffery v. Stategreen1 sentence2009Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1."); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 509 . 12. 12 See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 ; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State , 903 S.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1995, no pet.) (noting that "[i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Schulmangreen1 sentence2009Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1."); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 509 . 12. 12 See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 ; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State , 903 S.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1995, no pet.) (noting that "[i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. | 1 | 1 |
Ford Motor Co. v. Sheldongreen1 sentence1999Ford Motor Co., Inc. v. Sheldon, 965 S.W.2d 65, 73-74 (Tex.App.—Austin 1998, pet. granted). | 1 | 1 |
Crane v. Stategreen2 sentences1991In Crane v. State, 786 S.W.2d 338, 345 (Tex.Crim.App.1990), this Court held that if an appellant does not object when a venireperson is excused for cause, he may not challenge that ruling on appeal. 1991In Crane v. State, 786 S.W.2d 338, 345 (Tex.Crim.App.1990), this Court held that if an appellant does not object when a venireperson is excused for cause, he may not challenge that ruling on appeal. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Texas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stafford v. State
green
1 sentence2009Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1."); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 509 . 12. 12 See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 ; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State , 903 S.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1995, no pet.) (noting that "[i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Anders v. California
green
1 sentence2009Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error but found none, the court of appeals met the requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 47.1."); Stafford , 813 S.W.2d at 509 . 12. 12 See Anders , 386 U.S. at 744 ; see also In re Schulman , 252 S.W.3d at 408 n.17 (citing Jeffery v. State , 903 S.W.2d 776, 779-80 (Tex. App.-Dallas 1995, no pet.) (noting that "[i]f an attorney believes the appeal is frivolous, he must withdraw from representing the appellant. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
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.