Doe v. Seccombe

Supreme Court of Colorado

Doe v. Seccombe

493 P.2d 30, 177 Colo. 127, 1972 Colo. LEXIS 884

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedJanuary 24, 1972

DocketNo. 25387

StatusPublished

This text of 493 P.2d 30 (Doe v. Seccombe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Colorado primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Doe v. Seccombe, 493 P.2d 30, 177 Colo. 127, 1972 Colo. LEXIS 884 (Colo. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

MR. JUSTICE GROVES

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Under Colo. Const, art. VI, § 3, the petitioner applied for a writ in the nature of mandamus. We were asked to order the respondent district attorney to certify that there is probable cause to believe that the petitioner was raped, in order that the petitioner might ask a special hospital board of three licensed physicians to authorize an abortion under 1967 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 40-2-50. We issued a rule to show cause why the request for relief should not be granted and the respondent answered.

The petitioner has now advised that she has received an abortion, pursuant to the mental health provisions of the statute.

The petitioner sought relief individually and as a class action on behalf of others similarly situated. We decline to consider the matter as a class action and, of course, the matter presented by the petitioner individually has become moot.

The rule is discharged.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MR. JUSTICE GROVES

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Under Colo. Const, art. VI, § 3, the petitioner applied for a writ in the nature of mandamus. We were asked to order the respondent district attorney to certify that there is probable cause to believe that the petitioner was raped, in order that the petitioner might ask a special hospital board of three licensed physicians to authorize an abortion under 1967 Perm. Supp., C.R.S. 1963, 40-2-50. We issued a rule to show cause why the request for relief should not be granted and the respondent answered.

The petitioner has now advised that she has received an abortion, pursuant to the mental health provisions of the statute.

The petitioner sought relief individually and as a class action on behalf of others similarly situated. We decline to consider the matter as a class action and, of course, the matter presented by the petitioner individually has become moot.

The rule is discharged.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

493 P.2d 30, 177 Colo. 127, 1972 Colo. LEXIS 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doe-v-seccombe-colo-1972.