Shotkin v. Kaplan

Supreme Court of Colorado

Shotkin v. Kaplan

178 P.2d 676, 116 Colo. 83, 1947 Colo. LEXIS 287

CourtSupreme Court of Colorado

DecidedMarch 10, 1947

DocketNo. 15,866.

StatusPublished

This text of 178 P.2d 676 (Shotkin v. Kaplan) 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

Shotkin v. Kaplan, 178 P.2d 676, 116 Colo. 83, 1947 Colo. LEXIS 287 (Colo. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

On motion to dismiss writ of error which was issued February 14, 1947, for that, as said, the writ here involves the same case, identified as number 15838, in which writ of error was issued December 27, 1946, and still is pending. That identity attends clearly appears, indeed, in plaintiff in error’s letter of transmission of papers pertaining to his praecipe for the writ in the instant case, he refers to the matter as a “new appeal.” We cannot think justification attends the issuance of the second writ of error.

*84 In fairness to Mr. Holland, appearing as counsel for plaintiff in error in opposition to the motion of defendants in error to dismiss, we mention that he did not represent plaintiff in error when the latter secured the writ of error. Until the motion to dismiss that writ was interposed, plaintiff in error appeared pro se.

Let the motion be granted.

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

Per Curiam.

On motion to dismiss writ of error which was issued February 14, 1947, for that, as said, the writ here involves the same case, identified as number 15838, in which writ of error was issued December 27, 1946, and still is pending. That identity attends clearly appears, indeed, in plaintiff in error’s letter of transmission of papers pertaining to his praecipe for the writ in the instant case, he refers to the matter as a “new appeal.” We cannot think justification attends the issuance of the second writ of error.

*84 In fairness to Mr. Holland, appearing as counsel for plaintiff in error in opposition to the motion of defendants in error to dismiss, we mention that he did not represent plaintiff in error when the latter secured the writ of error. Until the motion to dismiss that writ was interposed, plaintiff in error appeared pro se.

Let the motion be granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 P.2d 676, 116 Colo. 83, 1947 Colo. LEXIS 287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shotkin-v-kaplan-colo-1947.