RUARK v. COLORADO, 378 U.S. 585 (1964)
U.S. Supreme Court
RUARK v. COLORADO, 378 U.S. 585 (1964) 378 U.S. 585RUARK v. COLORADO.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF
COLORADO.
No. 1173, Misc.
Decided June 22, 1964.
Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded.
Petitioner pro se.
Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General of Colorado, Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Attorney General, and John E. Bush, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.
PER CURIAM.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Colorado for consideration in light of Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, dissenting.
For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Smith v. Crouse, ante, p. 584, I would set this case for argument.
U.S. Supreme Court
RUARK v. COLORADO, 378 U.S. 585 (1964) 378 U.S. 585 RUARK v. COLORADO.ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO.
No. 1173, Misc.
Decided June 22, 1964.
Certiorari granted; judgment vacated; and case remanded. Petitioner pro se. Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General of Colorado, Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Attorney General, and John E. Bush, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent. PER CURIAM. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Colorado for consideration in light of Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, dissenting. For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Smith v. Crouse, ante, p. 584, I would set this case for argument. Page 378 U.S. 585, 586
