Case ID: colo_96/html/0273-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam. Mr. Justice Young,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 13,121.
    People ex rel. Link v. Tucker.
    (42 P. [2d] 472)
    Decided December 17, 1934.
    Rehearing denied January 7, 1935.
    Second petition for rehearing denied March 4, 1935.
    Mr. Foster Cline, for plaintiff in error.
    Messrs. McComb & Creek, Mr. Walter E. Schwed, for defendant in error.
    
      Mr. W. W. Grant, Mr. Raymond L. Sauter, amici curiae.
   Per Curiam.

Mr. Justice Holland did not participate in the hearing or in the consideration of this cause. Chief Justice Adams and Justices Butler and Burke are of the opinion that it should be affirmed, whereas Justices Campbell, Hilliard and Bouck are of the opinion that it should be reversed. As it therefore must 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 conclusions of the several members of the court.

Judgment affirmed.

Mr. Justice Young,

concurring.

The motion of the plaintiff in error for reconsideration of the cause and motion for rehearing on the petition for rehearing raises a question of procedure, namely: Whether a three to three division of the court on the question of granting or denying the first petition for a rehearing operated to grant or deny that petition. In my opinion, it operated to deny the petition and for that reason, under rule 48 of this court, the plaintiff in error was without legal right to file the second petition, and we should not have permitted him to do so. Under said rule, such petition should now be stricken, or if not stricken, then denied.

Not having participated in the former consideration of this case on the merits, and not having heard the oral arguments, I deem it proper to state that I have participated in the hearing on this second petition for a rehearing solely for the reason that in my view of the matter it raises, as stated above, only a question of procedure, and does not involve the merits of the case.