Forty-Fourth General Assembly of Colorado v. Lucas
Cases that cite this one
15 later published cases cite this decision.
- Germano v. Kerner (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1965)
- Kruidenier v. McCulloch (Iowa 1965)
- Andersen v. King County (Wash. 2006)
- Andersen v. King County (Wash. 2006)
- Joe Sheffield v. Itawamba County Board of Supervisors (5th Cir. 1971)
- Grivetti v. Illinois State Electoral Board (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1971)
- George J. Montano v. Richard C. Lee (2d Cir. 1967)
- Montano v. Lee (2d Cir. 1967)
- Dungan v. Sawyer (District Court, D. Nevada 1965)
- In re Interrogatories from House of Representatives (Colo. 1965)
- In re Interrogatories from House of Representatives (Colo. 1965)
- Midwest Video Corp. v. Campbell (District Court, D. New Mexico 1965)
- Swann v. Adams (Supreme Court of the United States 1967)
- Jordan v. Silver (Supreme Court of the United States 1965)
- Davis v. Cameron (District Court, S.D. Iowa 1965)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
FORTY-FOURTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF COLORADO ET AL.
v.
LUCAS ET AL.
Supreme Court of United States.
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.