Skip to main content
Fifth Circuit· 3/14/2003

Robertson v. Cockrell

Citations

  • 325 F.3d 243
  • 2003 WL 1204119

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • stating that for evidence to fall within the scope of Penry, there must be a causal nexus between the mitigating evidence and the commission of the crime
  • rejecting any suggestion that Penry II silently modified Penry I and encroached upon Jurek
  • recognizing the continued vitality of the Teague nonretroactivity doctrine under AEDPA
  • rejecting any suggestion that Penry II silently modified Penry I and encroached upon Jurek
  • rejecting any suggestion that Penry II silently modified Penry I and encroached upon Jurek
  • recognizing continued vitality of Teague nonretroactivity doctrine under AEDPA

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Barksdale, Benavides, Clement, Davis, Demoss, Dennis, Garza, Higginbotham, Jolly, Jones, King, Smith, Stewart, Wiener

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

42 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

111 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Robertson v. Cockrell

4 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.