Hinkley v. Oriental Refining Co.

Supreme Court of Colorado

Hinkley v. Oriental Refining Co.

178 P.2d 416, 116 Colo. 33, 1947 Colo. LEXIS 277

Supreme Court of Colorado·Decided February 24, 1947·No. No. 15,608.·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Mr. Justice Luxford has not participated in the hearing or in the consideration of this cause. Chief Justice Burke and Justices Stone and Alter are of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed, whereas Justices Hilliard, Jackson and Hays are of the opinion that it should be reversed. As the judgment must therefore be affirmed by operation of law because of an equally di *34 vided court, no good purpose would be served by a statement of the issues or the reasons for the conclusion 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. Justice Luxford has not participated in the hearing or in the consideration of this cause. Chief Justice Burke and Justices Stone and Alter are of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed, whereas Justices Hilliard, Jackson and Hays are of the opinion that it should be reversed. As the judgment must therefore be affirmed by operation of law because of an equally di *34 vided court, no good purpose would be served by a statement of the issues or the reasons for the conclusion of the several members of the court. Rule 118 (f), R. C.P. Colo.

Judgment affirmed.

Hinkley v. Oriental Refining Co., 178 P.2d 416, 116 Colo. 33, 1947 Colo. LEXIS 277 (Colo. 1947).

Pincite

178 P.2d 416 (Hinkley v. Oriental Refining Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.