Public-domain · open source

499 U.S. 1301

111 S. Ct. 1407

113 L. Ed. 2d 206

Docket No. A-704 (90-7411).

Cole v. Texas

Supreme Court of the United States

Decided March 18, 1991

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1991-03-18

Cited by 5 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2014

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“I will . . . in every capital case on direct review, grant a stay of execution pending disposition by this Court of the petition for certiorari.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Rodriguez v. Texas

“interfer[ing] with the orderly processing of a petition on direct review by this Court.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Rodriguez v. Texas

Relies on Mmahat v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. · Madden v. Texas

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1991-03-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

On application for stay of execution of sentence of death.

March 18, 1991. Justice SCALIA, Circuit Justice.

I have before me an application for a stay of execution pending disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas. The petitioner seeks direct review of the judgment of the Texas courts affirming his death sentence.

I will in this case, and in every capital case on direct review, grant a stay of execution pending disposition by this Court of the petition for certiorari. While I will not extend the time for filing a petition beyond an established execution date, see Madden v. Texas, 498 U.S. 1301, 111 S.Ct. 902, 112 L.Ed.2d 1026 (1991) (SCALIA, J., in chambers), neither will I permit the State's execution date to interfere with the orderly processing of a petition on direct review by this Court.

¶1

It is so ordered.