West v. United States

West v. United States, 409 U.S. 880 (1972)

Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Decided: October 10, 1972
Docket: No. 72-5021
Citations: 409 U.S. 88034 L. Ed. 2d 135

Cited by 40 4 descriptions by later courts

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 4 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(courts should accept allegations as true “except to the extent that they are inherently incredible, merely eonclu-sory rather than statements of fact, or are contradicted by the record”)

In re Maurice, 167 B.R. 114 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1994)
(“[I]t is well settled that a defendant’s plea of guilty admits, in legal effect, the facts as charged and waives all non-jurisdictional defenses. Entrapment is a non-jurisdictional defense on the merits and petitioners have waived their right to assert it.” (citing Fifth Circuit precedents)

United States v. Yater, 756 F.2d 1058 (5th Cir. 1985)
(no specific claim of misconduct)

United States v. Moten, 582 F.2d 654 (2d Cir. 1978)

Cited by 40 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

United States v. Frank Moten582 F.2d 654 (2d Cir. 1978)
State v. Watson345 A.2d 532 (Conn. 1973)
Morgan v. State688 S.W.2d 504 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985)
United States v. Edward Grady Partin493 F.2d 750 (5th Cir. 1974)
United States v. James Theodore Eagle539 F.2d 1166 (8th Cir. 1976)
State v. Buckley426 So. 2d 103 (La. 1983)

Most recent

Merritt v. Commonwealth528 S.E.2d 743 (Va. Ct. App. 2000)
Gilliam v. Commonwealth465 S.E.2d 592 (Va. Ct. App. 1996)
United States v. Louis Nash and Ken Nash29 F.3d 1195 (7th Cir. 1994)
Thomas v. Commonwealth446 S.E.2d 469 (Va. Ct. App. 1994)
Economou v. Little850 F. Supp. 849 (N.D. Cal. 1994)
In re Maurice167 B.R. 114 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1994)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list