Eresch v. Hines

Supreme Court of Colorado

Eresch v. Hines

25 P.2d 59, 122 Colo. 588, 1950 Colo. LEXIS 287

Supreme Court of Colorado·Decided October 30, 1950·No. No. 16,362·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Mr. Chief Justice Hilliard did not participate in the consideration of this cause.

Mr. Justice Hays, Mr. Justice Alter and Mr. Justice Holland are of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed, whereas, Mr. Justice Jackson, Mr. Justice Stone and Mr. Justice Moore think that it should be reversed.

[589] The judgment, therefore, must be affirmed by operation of law because of an evenly divided court, and no good purpose would be served by a statement of the issues or the reasons for the conclusions of the several members of the court. Rule 118 (f), R.C.P. Colo.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Mr. Chief Justice Hilliard did not participate in the consideration of this cause.

Mr. Justice Hays, Mr. Justice Alter and Mr. Justice Holland are of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed, whereas, Mr. Justice Jackson, Mr. Justice Stone and Mr. Justice Moore think that it should be reversed.

[589] The judgment, therefore, must be affirmed by operation of law because of an evenly divided court, and no good purpose would be served by a statement of the issues or the reasons for the conclusions of the several members of the court. Rule 118 (f), R.C.P. Colo.

Judgment affirmed.

Eresch v. Hines, 25 P.2d 59, 122 Colo. 588, 1950 Colo. LEXIS 287 (Colo. 1950).

Pincite

25 P.2d 59 (Eresch v. Hines) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.