Ruark v. Colorado, 1173
| Decision Date | 22 June 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 1173,M,1173 |
| Citation | 84 S.Ct. 1935,12 L.Ed.2d 1042,378 U.S. 585 |
| Parties | Theodore C. RUARK, v. COLORADO. isc |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Theodore C. Ruark, pro se.
Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen. of Colorado, Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., and John E. Bush, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Colorado.
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, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811.
For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Smith v. Crouse, 378 U.S. 584, 84 S.Ct. 1929, I would set this case for argument.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lopez, In re
...631, 637-638.8 Smith v. Crouse (1964) 378 U.S. 584, 84 S.Ct. 1929, 12 L.Ed.2d 1039 (per curiam); Ruark v. State of Colorado (1964) 378 U.S. 585, 84 S.Ct. 1935, 12 L.Ed.2d 1042 (per curiam).9 Eskridge v. Washington State Board of Prison Terms & Paroles (1958) 357 U.S. 214, 78 S.Ct. 1061, 2 L......
-
Donnell v. Swenson
...584, 84 S.Ct. 1929, 12 L.Ed.2d 1039 (1964) (per curiam), reversing 192 Kan. 171, 386 P.2d 295 (1963); see Ruark v. Colorado, 378 U.S. 585, 84 S.Ct. 1935, 12 L.Ed.2d 1042 (1964) per curiam); Daegle v. Kansas, 375 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 89, 11 L.Ed.2d 44 (1963) (per curiam); Herrera v. Heinze, 375 ......
- United States v. Thomas
- United States v. Sklaroff