The caption
The parties exactly as the court lists them—not a claim about the merits.
State court of last resort · ST-VA-SC
Cochran v. Commonwealth
No. 982476Supreme Court of Virginia
982476 Cochran v. Commonwealth 11/05/1999 By an order entered in response to a habeas corpus petition, defendant was awarded leave to petition for appeal. Conducting review de novo, and finding no error in the…
The clerk's words are shown exactly as filed.The activity
Orders, motions, and filings in the clerk's own words and sequence.
The source
The official docket and available court documents attached to every update.
982476 Cochran v. Commonwealth 11/05/1999 By an order entered in response to a habeas corpus petition, defendant was awarded leav…
- Court
- Supreme Court of Virginia
- First added here
- October 4, 2026
- Last entry
- November 5, 1999
No bill or executive-order citation is attached to this file.
Official docket
Case timeline
The clerk's wording is shown verbatim and linked to the court's own document page where available.
Docket entry
982476 Cochran v. Commonwealth 11/05/1999 By an order entered in response to a habeas corpus petition, defendant was awarded leave to petition for appeal. Conducting review de novo, and finding no error in the decision of the Court of Appeals sitting en banc, the judgment is affirmed because the trial court did not err in overruling defendant's motion to suppress the evidence as obtained by an unreasonable seizure of the defendant in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.
Open court document ↗Rulings in this case over time
Courts at different levels and stages can reach different results in the same case. Each entry is the court's own record; read it before drawing a conclusion.
1 entry, oldest first.
· Supreme Court of Virginia
Affirmed
The court's record, as written
982476 Cochran v. Commonwealth 11/05/1999 By an order entered in response to a habeas corpus petition, defendant was awarded leave to petition for appeal. Conducting review de novo, and finding no error in the decision of the Court of Appeals sitting en banc, the judgment is affirmed because the trial court did not err in overruling defendant's motion to suppress the evidence as obtained by an unreasonable seizure of the defendant in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.
Outcome words in this text: affirmed.
Method: an entry is marked with an outcome only when its own text contains the outcome word, and the word is shown beside it. Orders, opinions and judgments whose text does not say are marked Other. Party filings, notices and routine procedural orders (appearances, extra pages, time extensions, scheduling) are not listed. No link between this case and any other case is recorded in our data, so only this case's own record is shown. Open the court's docket
Documents and links