Case Citator › Penson v. Ohio

Penson v. Ohio

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

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
488 U.S. 75
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
212 of 212
Citing cases (total)
13,883
Treatment dates
2000
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Penson v. Ohio has one confirmed limitation, listed below. All 212 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

The Supreme Court later held that Penson's language suggesting the Anders procedure is mandatory was unnecessary and that Penson did not decide whether Anders is the exclusive permissible framework. The other opinions followed Penson's appellate-counsel and independent-review rules, reported Penson's own treatment of another procedure, or rejected party arguments outside Penson's complete-denial boundary.

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.

13,883 later cases cite Penson v. Ohio; 212 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 Penson v. Ohio?

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

Limited

  • The Court confined Penson's language suggesting that the Anders procedure is mandatory to unnecessary dicta, holding that Penson did not decide whether Anders is the exclusive permissible framework.

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

    It is true that in Penson we used some language suggesting that Anders is mandatory upon the States, see 488 U. S., at 80-82, but that language was not necessary to the decision we reached. We had no reason in Penson to determine whether the Anders procedure was mandatory, because the procedure at issue clearly failed under Douglas, see infra, at 280.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Penson v. Ohio 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