Contracts · MBE-tested
Hinkley, Attorney General ex rel. State v. Oriental Refining Company
116 Colo. 33178 P.2d 416·Colorado Supreme Court·1947·CO
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
No. 15,608.
Hinkley, Attorney General ex rel. State v. Oriental Refining Company.
(178 P. [2d] 416)
Decided February 24, 1947.
Rehearing denied March 17, 1947.
Mr. H. Lawrence Hinkley, Attorney General, Mr. Duke W. Dunbar, Deputy, Mr. George K. Thomas, Assistant for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Max P. Zall, for defendant in error.
En Banc.
[MAJORITY — Per Curiam.]
Per Curiam.
Mr. Justice Luxford has not participated in the hearing or in the consideration of this cause. Chief Justice Burke and Justices Stone and Alter are of the opinion that the judgment should be affirmed, whereas Justices Hilliard, Jackson and Hays are of the opinion that it should be reversed. As the judgment must therefore be affirmed by operation of law because of an equally divided court, no good purpose would be served by a statement of the issues or the reasons for the conclusion of the several members of the court. Rule 118 (f), R. C.P. Colo.
Judgment affirmed.