Case Citator › McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1

McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Questioned by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
486 U.S. 429
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
91 of 91
Citing cases (total)
1,718
Treatment dates
2000
Questioned by some courts
At least one reviewed court has questioned this case’s reasoning or continued validity. No reviewed court has overruled it. McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1 has been questioned: all 91 flagged citations have been read, and the 1 confirmed treatment is listed below. Smith v. Robbins questioned McCoy's description of Wisconsin's procedure as going “one step further” than Anders v. California, while reaffirming that the procedure afforded constitutionally adequate appellate review.
More on how this was screened

The other opinions applied McCoy's definitions of frivolous appeals and counsel's duties, treated McCoy as controlling, or used nearby adverse language for other authorities, rehearing motions, and trial objections. Duplicate citations and duplicate copies of the same opinion were read and counted separately.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

1,718 later cases cite McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1; 91 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Questioned

  • The Supreme Court questioned McCoy's description of Wisconsin's procedure as going “one step further” than Anders because the procedure provided less effective advocacy in at least one respect.

    Smith v. Robbins · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    We did, in McCoy, describe the procedure at issue as going “one step further” than Anders, McCoy, supra, at 442, thus suggesting that An-ders might set a mandatory minimum, but we think this description of the Wisconsin procedure questionable, since it provided less effective advocacy for an indigent — in at least one respect — than does the Anders procedure.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1 and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace