Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles
Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles, 471 U.S. 1003 (1985)
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 7 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(adopting the federal standard of review for petitions alleging ineffective assistance of counsel claims in Nevada)
-
(finding “active supervision” prong not satisfied where state law did not provide for any state supervision following issuance of a certificate of need)
-
(setting out factors which district court should consider when ruling on motion to withdraw guilty plea and holding that district court ruling on withdrawal motion must be accorded “broad discretion”)
-
(allowing cross-examination of opinion witnesses about dismissed criminal charges against defendant)
-
(statute providing for state regulation of taxicabs if cities did not regulate held to provide basis for municipality’s immunity)
-
(district judge’s assessment of effect on judicial resources to be accorded substantial deference since he “is in the best position to know the effect the withdrawal had on its resources.”)
-
(criminal defendant has no right to select particular wording of jury instruction)
Cited by 101 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Courts of Appeals59
- Federal District Courts23
- Bankruptcy Courts3
- Federal Specialty Courts1
- Military Courts1
- State Highest Courts13
- State Appellate Courts1
Relies on it most ⓘ
- Golden State Transit Corp. v. City of Los Angeles
- Kern-Tulare Water District v. City of Bakersfield
- United States v. Michael P. Oshatz and Leonard A. Messinger
- United States v. Miguel Hurtado and Henry Antonio Aguas
- United States v. Frederick Ed Soudan
- Stichting Ter Behartiging Van de Belangen Van Oudaandeelhouders in Het Kapitaal Van Saybolt International B.V. v. Schreiber
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.