Skip to content


Ruark Vs. Colorado - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number378 U.S. 585
AppellantRuark
RespondentColorado
Excerpt:
ruark v. colorado - 378 u.s. 585 (1964) u.s. supreme court ruark v. colorado, 378 u.s. 585 (1964) 378 u.s. 585 ruark v. colorado. on petition for writ of certiorari to the supreme court of colorado. no. 1173, misc. decided june 22, 1964. certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded. petitioner pro se. duke w. dunbar, attorney general of colorado, frank e. hickey, deputy attorney general, and john e. bush, assistant attorney general, for respondent. per curiam. the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. the judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the supreme court of colorado for consideration in light of douglas v. california, 372 u.s. 353 . .....
Judgment:
RUARK v. COLORADO - 378 U.S. 585 (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court RUARK v. COLORADO, 378 U.S. 585 (1964) 378 U.S. 585

RUARK v. COLORADO.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO.
No. 1173, Misc.
Decided June 22, 1964.

Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded.

Petitioner pro se.

Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General of Colorado, Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Attorney General, and John E. Bush, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Colorado for consideration in light of Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 .

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, dissenting.

For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Smith v. Crouse, ante, p. 584, I would set this case for argument.

Page 378 U.S. 585, 586




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //