⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

Cases

Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.

20 opinions for “Edwards v. Cockrell”

Edwards v. Cockrellpublic domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2002-03-25 · Published · cited 0× · 535 U.S. 959
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Edwards v. Cockrellpublic domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2002-04-15 · Published · cited 0× · 535 U.S. 997
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Edwards v. Cockrellpublic domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2002-03-25 · Published · cited 0× · 535 U.S. 959
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Edwards v. Cockrellpublic domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2002-04-15 · Published · cited 0× · 535 U.S. 997
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Edwards v. Cockrellpublic domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2001-10-01 · Published · cited 0× · 534 U.S. 853; 122 S. Ct. 122; 151 L. Ed. 2d 78; 70 U.S.L.W. 3236; 2001 U.S. LEXIS 6027
C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Supreme Court of the United States · 2002-03-25 · Published · cited 0× · 535 U.S. 959; 122 S. Ct. 1368
535 U.S. 959 EDWARDSv.COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION. No. 01-7922. Supreme Court of the United States. March 25, 2002. 1 C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Supreme Court of the United States · 2002-05-20 · Published · cited 0× · 535 U.S. 1090; 122 S. Ct. 1990
535 U.S. 1090 EDWARDSv.COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION. No. 01-7922. Supreme Court of the United States. May 20, 2002. 1 Petitions for rehearing denied.
Supreme Court of the United States · 2002-04-15 · Published · cited 0× · 535 U.S. 997; 122 S. Ct. 1561; 70 U.S.L.W. 3640; 152 L. Ed. 2d 484; 2002 U.S. LEXIS 2520
535 U.S. 997 EDWARDSv.COCKRELL, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION. No. 01-8288. Supreme Court of the United States. April 15, 2002. 1 C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Cockrell v. Edwardspublic domain
Supreme Court of the United States · 2000-12-04 · Published · cited 0× · 531 U.S. 1044; 121 S. Ct. 643
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Bigby v. Cockrellpublic domain
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2003-07-28 · Published · cited 2× · 340 F.3d 259; 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 15007; 2003 WL 21741587
CARL E. STEWART, Circuit Judge: Petitioner-Appellant, Gary Eugene Big-by (“Bigby”), appeals the district court’s denial of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus regarding his claim that, by declining to recuse himself after Bigby assaulted him, the trial judge denied Bigby his constitutional right to due process. Prominent among other claims raised by Bigby is his Penry claim that punishment phase jury instructions p
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2003-08-08 · Published · cited 0× · 71 F. App'x 348
PER CURIAM.* CapetiHo requests a certificate of appealability on several issues. We decline to issue the requested certificate for essentially the reasons stated by the district court in its careful opinion. Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumst
Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · 2023-07-10 · Published · cited 0×
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS COCKRELL INVESTMENT § PARTNERS, L.P., § No. 08-21-00200-CV Appellant, § Appeal from the v.
Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · 2023-07-10 · Published · cited 0×
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS COCKRELL INVESTMENT § PARTNERS, L.P., § No. 08-21-00200-CV Appellant, § Appeal from the v.
Riddle v. Cockrellpublic domain
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2002-04-15 · Published · cited 27× · 288 F.3d 713; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 6855; 2002 WL 553578
CARL E. STEWART, Circuit Judge: Granville Riddle (“Riddle”) appeals from the district court’s denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2001). Because we find that the district court did not err, we AFFIRM. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Riddle was charged with intentionally causing Ronnie Hoo
Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · 2023-03-08 · Published · cited 0×
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS COCKRELL INVESTMENT § PARTNERS, L.P., § No. 08-21-00200-CV Appellant, § Appeal from the v.
Broxton v. Cockrellpublic domain
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2002-01-02 · Published · cited 4× · 278 F.3d 456; 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 8; 2002 WL 5587
PER CURIAM: This is an application for certificate of appealability from a judgment of a federal district court refusing to set aside a state conviction of capital murder. I Eugene Alvin Broxton in April 1992 was convicted by a Texas jury in Harris County, Texas, of capital murder and shortly thereafter sentenced to death. The Te
Beall v. Cockrellpublic domain
District Court, N.D. Texas · 2001-10-18 · Published · cited 12× · 174 F. Supp. 2d 512; 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17072; 2001 WL 1335771
174 F.Supp.2d 512 (2001) Edward BEALL, Petitioner, v. Janie COCKRELL, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division Respondent. No. 3-01-CV-0546-D. United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division. October 18, 2001. *513 *514 *515
Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · 2025-04-10 · Published · cited 0×
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS MONICA MARIE COCKRELL, § No. 08-24-00096-CV Appellant, § Appeal from the v. § County Court at Law ROY EDWARD COCKRELL,
Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso) · 2022-08-29 · Published · cited 0×
COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS COCKRELL INVESTMENT PARTNERS, § L.P., § Appellant, § v. No. 08-21-00200-CV § MIDDLE PECOS GROUNDWATER Appeal
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2003-03-14 · Published · cited 17× · 325 F.3d 243; 2003 WL 1204119
CARL E. STEWART, Circuit Judge, dissenting: I agree with the thrust of Judge De-Moss’s and Judge Dennis’s dissents; however, I write separately in order to clarify my perspective on this difficult case. The facts at issue are adequately set out in the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion by Judge DeMoss. I will not recite them here. The nullification instruction at the core of our re