Case Name: DUC VAN LE, on behalf of himself and the class of persons similarly situated, Petitioner, v. Irene M. IBARRA, in her official capacity as the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Social Services; Henry Solano, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Institutions; Robert Bau-serman, Robbie L. Bean, Susanne D. Dosh, Dennis Fisher, Mary Kyer, Peggy Stokstad, John P. Stone, and Richard F. Walker in their official capacities as members of the Colorado Board of Social Services, Respondents
Court: Colorado Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Colorado
Decision Date: 1992-12-14
Citations: 843 P.2d 15
Docket Number: No. 91SC189
Parties: DUC VAN LE, on behalf of himself and the class of persons similarly situated, Petitioner, v. Irene M. IBARRA, in her official capacity as the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Social Services; Henry Solano, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Institutions; Robert Bau- serman, Robbie L. Bean, Susanne D. Dosh, Dennis Fisher, Mary Kyer, Peggy Stokstad, John P. Stone, and Richard F. Walker in their official capacities as members of the Colorado Board of Social Services, Respondents.
Judges: ROVIRA, C.J., and ERICKSON and MULLARKEY, JJ., would grant the petitions.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 2d
Volume: 843
Pages: 15–17

Head Matter:
DUC VAN LE, on behalf of himself and the class of persons similarly situated, Petitioner, v. Irene M. IBARRA, in her official capacity as the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Social Services; Henry Solano, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Institutions; Robert Bau- serman, Robbie L. Bean, Susanne D. Dosh, Dennis Fisher, Mary Kyer, Peggy Stokstad, John P. Stone, and Richard F. Walker in their official capacities as members of the Colorado Board of Social Services, Respondents.
No. 91SC189.
Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.
Dec. 14, 1992.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 11, 1993.
Law Offices of John Robert Holland, John R. Holland, Law Office of Kathleen Mullen, P.C., Kathleen Mullen, Denver, Jean E. Dubofsky, P.C., Jean E. Dubofsky, Boulder, for petitioner.
Gale A. Norton, Atty. Gen., Raymond T. Slaughter, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Timothy M. Tymkovich, Sol. Gen., Paul Farley, Deputy Atty. Gen., Wade Livingston, John August Lizza, First Asst. Attys. Gen., Stacy L. Worthington, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for respondents.
Judith Howell, Denver, for amicus curiae Catholic Community Services of the Archdiocese of Denver.
Donald W. Hoagland, Denver, for Colorado Coalition for Health Care Access.
Horowitz & Berrett, P.C., David M. Ber-rett, Denver, for amicus curiae Capitol Hill Action & Recreation Group & Colorado Ass’n for the Mentally Ill.
Kristin A. Kutz, William P. Bethke, Denver, for amicus curiae Center for Legal Advocacy, d/b/a Legal Center Serving Persons With Disabilities.
Pendleton & Sabían, P.C., Richard F. Hennessey, William J. Martinez, Denver, for amicus curiae Colorado Psychiatric Soc.
Frank & Finger, P.C., William S. Finger, Evergreen, for amicus curiae Atlantis Community, Inc.
Legal Aid Society of Metropolitan Denver, Linda J. Olson, Jonathan D. Asher, Denver, Colorado Coalition of Legal Services Programs, Daniel M. Taubman, Denver, for amicus curiae Dorothy Harberson.
Kelly/Haglund/Garnsey & Kahn, Christine L. Murphy, Denver, for amicus curiae Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, Salvation Army Social Services Div., Samaritan House, and Sacred Heart House.
Dudley P. Spiller, Jr., Denver, for amicus curiae Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods, Inc.
Peggy E. Montano, Ann E. Mesmer, Denver, for amicus curiae Colorado Alliance, for the Mentally Ill and Mental Health Ass’n of Colorado, Inc.
Wiley Daniel, Denver, for amicus curiae Colorado Bar Ass’n.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This case has been heard and reviewed by the court. Justice LOHR, Justice QUINN, and Justice KIRSHBAUM favor affirmance of the judgment of the Denver District Court. Due Van Le v. Ibarra, No. 88CV22641 (Aug. 23, 1990). Chief Justice ROVIRA, Justice ERICKSON, and Justice MULLARKEY favor reversal. Justice VOLLACK did not participate.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed by operation of law because of an equally divided court. C.A.R. 35(e).
ORDER OF COURT
Upon consideration of the Petitions for Rehearing filed in the above cause, and now being sufficiently advised in the premises,
IT IS THIS DAY ORDERED that said Petitions for Rehearing shall be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
ROVIRA, C.J., and ERICKSON and MULLARKEY, JJ., would grant the petitions.
ERICKSON, J., dissents to the denial.of the Petitions for Rehearing.
VOLLACK, J., does not participate.