RUARK v. COLORADO, 378 U.S. 585 (1964)

Justia Opinion Summary and Annotations
Read more

U.S. Supreme Court

RUARK v. COLORADO, 378 U.S. 585 (1964)

378 U.S. 585

RUARK v. COLORADO.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO.
No. 1173, Misc.
Decided June 22, 1964.

Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded.

Petitioner pro se.

Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General of Colorado, Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Attorney General, and John E. Bush, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Colorado for consideration in light of Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, dissenting.

For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Smith v. Crouse, ante, p. 584, I would set this case for argument.

Page 378 U.S. 585, 586

 


U.S. Supreme Court

RUARK v. COLORADO, 378 U.S. 585 (1964)

378 U.S. 585

RUARK v. COLORADO.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO.
No. 1173, Misc.
Decided June 22, 1964.

Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded.

Petitioner pro se.

Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General of Colorado, Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Attorney General, and John E. Bush, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Colorado for consideration in light of Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, dissenting.

For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Smith v. Crouse, ante, p. 584, I would set this case for argument.

Page 378 U.S. 585, 586

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.