Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
O'DELL et al. v. ESPINOZA, as personal representative of the estate of espinoza and as guardian, et al., 1982 — 456 U.S. 430 · caselaw · US
General
O'DELL et al. v. ESPINOZA, as personal representative of the estate of espinoza and as guardian, et al.
456 U.S. 43072 L. Ed. 2d 237·Supreme Court of the United States·1982
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
O’DELL et al. v. ESPINOZA, as personal representative of the estate of espinoza and as guardian, et al.
No. 81-534.
Argued April 26, 1982
Decided May 3, 1982
Theodore S. Halaby argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Louis B. Bruno and David Neil.
Scott H. Robinson argued the cause and filed a brief for respondents.
Charles S. Sims, Leon Friedman, Christopher A. Hansen, and Anthony F. Renzo filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union et al. as amici curiae urging affirmance.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Under 28 U. S. C. § 1257, this Court has jurisdiction to review only “[f]inal judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had.” Because the Colorado Supreme Court remanded this case for trial, its decision is not final “as an effective determination of the litigation.” Market Street R. Co. v. Railroad Comm’n of Cal., 324 U. S. 548, 551 (1945). Although there is a limited set of situations in which we have found finality as to the federal issue despite the ordering of further proceedings in the lower state courts, see Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469 (1975), this case does not fit into any of those categories. We therefore dismiss for want of jurisdiction.
It is so ordered.