Ruark v. Colorado

Supreme Court of the United States

June 22, 1964

Supreme Court of the United States · decided 1964-06-22

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“* * * 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. [People of State of] California, 372 U.S. 353 , 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Theodore C. Ruark v. Harry C. Tinsley, Warden

Relies on Douglas v. People of State of California · Smith v. Crouse · Etchieson v. Texas

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Vacated and remanded · 8–1 · Opinion by Per Curiam · Decided 1964-06-22

How this case has been cited

Cited by 66 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1986 · most notably Garrison v. State of Louisiana (1964), Freedman v. Maryland (1965)

25 federal appellate · 4 district · 22 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Theodore C. Ruark, pro se.

Duke W. Dunbar, Atty. Gen. of Colorado, Frank E. Hickey, Deputy Atty. Gen., and John E. Bush, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Colorado.

PER CURIAM.

¶1

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, 83 S.Ct. 814, 9 L.Ed.2d 811.

¶2

Mr. Justice HARLAN, dissenting.

¶3

For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Smith v. Crouse, 378 U.S. 584, 84 S.Ct. 1929, I would set this case for argument.