Oestereick v. Roper

Supreme Court of Colorado

Oestereick v. Roper

220 P.2d 551, 122 Colo. 59, 1950 Colo. LEXIS 214

Supreme Court of Colorado·Decided June 5, 1950·No. No. 16,321·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

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] 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. 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] 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.

Oestereick v. Roper, 220 P.2d 551, 122 Colo. 59, 1950 Colo. LEXIS 214 (Colo. 1950).

Pincite

220 P.2d 551 (Oestereick v. Roper) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.