Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado v. Lucas
FORTY-FOURTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF COLORADO Et Al. v. LUCAS Et Al.
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
Insofar as the judgment of the District Court decides federal questions, it is affirmed. Insofar as the judgment decides other questions, it is vacated and the cause is remanded for further consideration in light of the supervening decision of the Colorado Supreme Court in White v. Anderson, - Colo. -, 394 P. 2d 333 (1964).
Concurrence
Mr. Justice Clark, Mr. Justice Harlan, Mr. Justice Stewart, and Mr. Justice Goldberg,
concurring.
It is our understanding that the Court’s disposition of this case leaves it open to the District Court to abstain On the question as to the severability of the various provisions of Amendment No. 7, pending resolution of that issue with reasonable promptitude in further state court proceedings. We deem it appropriate explicitly to state our view that this is the coursé which the District Court should follow. On this basis, we join the Court’s opinion.
Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document
379 U.S. 693 (1965)
FORTY-FOURTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF COLORADO ET AL.
v.
LUCAS ET AL.
No. 661.
Supreme Court of United States.
Decided February 1, 1965. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO.
Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General of Colorado, Charles S. Vigil, Richard S. Kitchen, Sr., Stephen H. Hart and James Lawrence White for appellants.
Charles Ginsberg and George Louis Creamer for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
Insofar as the judgment of the District Court decides federal questions, it is affirmed. Insofar as the judgment decides other questions, it is vacated and the cause is remanded for further consideration in light of the supervening decision of the Colorado Supreme Court in White v. Anderson, ___ Colo. ___, 394 P. 2d 333 (1964).
MR. JUSTICE CLARK, MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, MR. JUSTICE STEWART, and MR. JUSTICE GOLDBERG, concurring.
It is our understanding that the Court's disposition of this case leaves it open to the District Court to abstain on the question as to the severability of the various provisions of Amendment No. 7, pending resolution of that issue with reasonable promptitude in further state court proceedings. We deem it appropriate explicitly to state our view that this is the course which the District Court should follow. On this basis, we join the Court's opinion.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 12 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.