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.
FORTY-FOURTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF COLORADO et al. v. LUCAS et al., 1965 — 379 U.S. 693 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
FORTY-FOURTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF COLORADO et al. v. LUCAS et al.
379 U.S. 69313 L. Ed. 2d 699·Supreme Court of the United States·1965
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
FORTY-FOURTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF COLORADO et al. v. LUCAS et al.
No. 661.
Decided February 1, 1965.
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 ap-pellees.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
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,]
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.