Ellis v. United States
Cases that cite this one
358 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Tommie A. Johnson v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1966)
- Smith v. Robbins (Supreme Court of the United States 2000)
- Coppedge v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1962)
- Orange County Social Services Agency v. Herbert B. (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)
- Angarano v. United States (D.C. 1974)
- In re Hoffman (Mich. 1969)
- Zedekiah Suggs v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1968)
- Anderson Jones v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1959)
- Dennis Surratt v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1958)
- Frank A. Tate v. United States of America, Robert M. Edelin v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1966)
- Lyszaj v. American Telephone & Telegraph Affiliates (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1982)
- Commonwealth v. McClendon (Pa. 1981)
- United States v. Alvarez (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 2007)
- Cruz v. Patterson (United States District Court for the District of Colorado 1966)
- Hardy v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1964)
- Cicero Martin, Jr. v. United States (D.C. Cir. 1959)
- State v. Johnson (Ohio Ct. App. 2021)
- Linden v. Harper and Row Publishers (District Court, S.D. New York 1980)
- Commonwealth v. Jones (Pa. 1973)
- In re Kayla G. (Cal. Ct. App. 1995)
- Smith v. Board of Probation & Parole (Pa. 1990)
- McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, District 1 (Supreme Court of the United States 1988)
- Watson v. United States (D.C. 1986)
- Commonwealth v. Stoyko (Pa. 1984)
- State v. Horine (Or. Ct. App. 1983)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, as is leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
The Court of Appeals denied petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis a conviction for housebreaking and larceny. 101 U. S. App. D. C. 386, 249 F. 2d 478. The Solicitor General concedes that leave to appeal should have been allowed unless petitioner’s contentions on the merits were frivolous. The only statutory requirement for the allowance of an indigent’s appeal is the applicant’s “good faith.” 28 U. S. C. § 1915. In the absence of some evident improper motive, the applicant’s good faith is established by the presentation of any issue that is not plainly frivolous. Farley v. United States, 354 U. S. 521. The good-faith test must not be converted *675 into a requirement of a preliminary showing of any particular degree of merit. Unless the issues raised are so frivolous that the appeal would be dismissed in the case of a nonindigent litigant, Fed. Rules Crim. Proc. 39 (a), the request of an indigent for leave to appeal in forma pauperis must be allowed.
Normally, allowance of an appeal should not be denied until an indigent has had adequate representation by counsel. Johnson v. United States, 352 U. S. 565. In this case, it appears that the two attorneys appointed by the Court of Appeals, performed essentially the role of amici curiae. But representation in the role of an advocate is required.. If counsel is convinced, after conscientious investigation, that the appeal is frivolous, of course, he may ask to withdraw on that account. If the court is satisfied that counsel has diligently investigated the possible grounds of appeal, and agrees with counsel’s evaluation of the case, then leave to withdraw may be allowed and leave to appeal may be denied. In this case, the Solicitor General concedes, and after examining the record we agree, that the issue presented — probable cause to arrest — is not one that “can necessarily be characterized as frivolous.” Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for reconsideration in light of this opinion.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.