Oestereick v. Roper
This text of 220 P.2d 551 (Oestereick v. Roper) 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.
Opinion
Mr. Justice Stone did not participate in the consideration of this cause. Mr. Justice Jackson, Mr. Justice Hays and Mr. Justice Alter are of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed, whereas, Mr. Chief Justice Hilliard, Mr. Justice Moore and Mr. Justice Holland think that it should be reversed. The judgment, therefore, must be affirmed by operation of law because of an evenly divided court, and no good purpose would be [60]*60served 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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
220 P.2d 551, 122 Colo. 59, 1950 Colo. LEXIS 214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oestereick-v-roper-colo-1950.