Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
16 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 1981–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Colorado courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
People v. Lowriegreen2 sentences2016V, § 1(1). $40 The nondelegation doctrine, which has its source in the constitutional separation of powers, prohibits the General Assembly from delegating its legislative power to some other agency or person, People v. Lowrie, 761 P.2d 778, 781 (Colo.1988). 1989“The nondelegation doctrine, which has its source in the constitutional separation of powers, prohibits the General Assembly from delegating its legislative power to some other agency or person.” People v. Lowrie, 761 P.2d 778, 781 (Colo.1988). | 5 | 5 |
Cottrell v. City & County of Denvergreen2 sentences1998In Cottrell v. City & County of Denver, we explained that, in addition to a review of statutory standards and safeguards, the nondelegation doctrine analysis may include a review of administrative standards and safeguards. 636 P.2d 703, 708-10 (Colo. 1981). 1998In Cottrell v. City & County of Denver, we explained that, in addition to a review of statutory standards and safeguards, the nondelegation doctrine analysis may include a review of administrative standards and safeguards. 636 P.2d 703, 708-10 (Colo.1981). | 5 | 5 |
People v. Holmesgreen2 sentences2016See People v. Holmes, 959 P.2d 406, 409 (Colo. 1998). 2004Thus, because the statute "provides sufficient statutory standards and safeguards to withstand a challenge based on the nondelegation doctrine," we conclude it is not unconstitutional. *58 See Holmes, supra, 959 P.2d at 412 . | 2 | 3 |
Swisher v. Browngreen2 sentences2016But, "[the General Assembly does not improperly delegate its legislative power 'when it describes what job must be done, who must do it, and the scope of his authority'" People v. Holmes, 959 P.2d 406, 409-10 (Colo.1998) (quoting Swisher v. Brown, 157 Colo. 378, 388 , 402 P.2d 621, 626 (1965)). 1[ 41 We disagree that H.B. 18-1229 unconstitutionally delegates legislative power: to licensed gun dealers,. 2016But, "[the General Assembly does not improperly delegate its legislative power 'when it describes what job must be done, who must do it, and the scope of his authority'" People v. Holmes, 959 P.2d 406, 409-10 (Colo.1998) (quoting Swisher v. Brown, 157 Colo. 378, 388 , 402 P.2d 621, 626 (1965)). 1[ 41 We disagree that H.B. 18-1229 unconstitutionally delegates legislative power: to licensed gun dealers,. | 1 | 2 |
People v. Lepikgreen2 sentences1998See People v. Lepik, 629 P.2d 1080 (Colo.1981); Casey v. People, 139 Colo. 89 , 336 P.2d 308 (1959). 1998See People v. Lepik, 629 P.2d 1080 (Colo.1981); Casey v. People, 139 Colo. 89 , 336 P.2d 308 (1959). | 1 | 2 |
Krupp v. Breckenridge Sanitation Districtgreen1 sentence2025Id. ¶ 19 Similarly, under the nondelegation doctrine, “the General Assembly may not delegate its law-making power although it may 8 delegate rule-making and other limited legislative authority to persons or entities within a proper statutory framework and with appropriate safeguards.” Krupp v. Breckenridge Sanitation Dist., 1 P.3d 178, 183 (Colo. App. 1999), aff’d, 19 P.3d 687 (Colo. 2001). ¶ 20 Also, as relevant here, the Special District Act grants districts the constitutional powers to enter into contracts and agreements, to borrow money and incur indebtedness, to evidence such indebtedness | 1 | 1 |
Coquina Oil Corp. v. Harry Kourlis Ranchgreen2 sentences2016See Coquina Oil Corp., 643 P.2d at 522 ; Platte River Power Auth., 775 P.2d at 83 . ¶27 Second, any such delegation would arguably violate the nondelegation doctrine. 2016See Coquina Oil Corp., 643 P.2d at 522 ; Platte River Power Auth., 776 P.2d at 83. ¶27 Second, any such delegation would arguably violate the nondelegation doctrine. | 1 | 1 |
Regional Transportation District v. Colorado Department of Labor & Employment, Division of Laborgreen2 sentences2000See RTD, 830 P.2d at 947 . 2000See RTD, 830 P.2d at 947 . | 1 | 1 |
City & County of Denver v. Denver Firefighters Local No. 858green2 sentences2000Id. at 1038 (citation omitted). 2000Id. at 1038 (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Olinger v. Peoplegreen2 sentences1988See generally Olinger v. People, 140 Colo. 397 , 344 P.2d 689 (1959). 1988See generally Olinger v. People, 140 Colo. 397 , 344 P.2d 689 (1959). | 1 | 1 |
People v. Willsongreen2 sentences1981The second states, “[T]he legislature may not delegate the power to make or define a law, but it may delegate the power to determine the applicable facts and situations to which the law applies.” People v. Willson, 187 Colo. 141, 143 , 528 P.2d 1315, 1316 (1974); accord, Swisher v. Brown, supra. These various formulations are obviously interrelated and our prior cases usually mention each prior to application of the nondelegation doctrine. 1981The second states, “[T]he legislature may not delegate the power to make or define a law, but it may delegate the power to determine the applicable facts and situations to which the law applies.” People v. Willson, 187 Colo. 141, 143 , 528 P.2d 1315, 1316 (1974); accord, Swisher v. Brown, supra. These various formulations are obviously interrelated and our prior cases usually mention each prior to application of the nondelegation doctrine. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Elizondo v. STATE, DEPT. OF REVENUE, ETC.
green
2 sentences1989In Cottrell we recognized the inadequacy of "[t]he traditional statement of the nondelegation doctrine" that "the legislature may delegate power to an administrative agency only if `the legislature has provided sufficient standards to guide the agency's exercise of that power.'" Id. at 708 (quoting Elizondo v. Department of Revenue, 194 Colo. 113 , 570 P.2d 518 (1977)). 1989In Cottrell we recognized the inadequacy of "[t]he traditional statement of the nondelegation doctrine" that "the legislature may delegate power to an administrative agency only if `the legislature has provided sufficient standards to guide the agency's exercise of that power.'" Id. at 708 (quoting Elizondo v. Department of Revenue, 194 Colo. 113 , 570 P.2d 518 (1977)). | 2 | 1984–1989 |
Krupp v. Breckenridge Sanitation District
green
1 sentence2025Id. ¶ 19 Similarly, under the nondelegation doctrine, “the General Assembly may not delegate its law-making power although it may 8 delegate rule-making and other limited legislative authority to persons or entities within a proper statutory framework and with appropriate safeguards.” Krupp v. Breckenridge Sanitation Dist., 1 P.3d 178, 183 (Colo. App. 1999), aff’d, 19 P.3d 687 (Colo. 2001). ¶ 20 Also, as relevant here, the Special District Act grants districts the constitutional powers to enter into contracts and agreements, to borrow money and incur indebtedness, to evidence such indebtedness | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Authority v. Cornerstone Group XXII, L.L.C.
green
1 sentence2025Id. ¶ 19 Similarly, under the nondelegation doctrine, “the General Assembly may not delegate its law-making power although it may 8 delegate rule-making and other limited legislative authority to persons or entities within a proper statutory framework and with appropriate safeguards.” Krupp v. Breckenridge Sanitation Dist., 1 P.3d 178, 183 (Colo. App. 1999), aff’d, 19 P.3d 687 (Colo. 2001). ¶ 20 Also, as relevant here, the Special District Act grants districts the constitutional powers to enter into contracts and agreements, to borrow money and incur indebtedness, to evidence such indebtedness | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Platte River Power Authority v. Nelson
green
1 sentence2016See Coquina Oil Corp., 643 P.2d at 522 ; Platte River Power Auth., 775 P.2d at 83 . ¶27 Second, any such delegation would arguably violate the nondelegation doctrine. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Casey v. People
green
2 sentences1998See People v. Lepik, 629 P.2d 1080 (Colo.1981); Casey v. People, 139 Colo. 89 , 336 P.2d 308 (1959). 1998See People v. Lepik, 629 P.2d 1080 (Colo.1981); Casey v. People, 139 Colo. 89 , 336 P.2d 308 (1959). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
City & County of Denver Ex Rel. Board of Water Commissioners v. Board of County Commissioners
green
1 sentence1996Denver v. Board of County Commissioners, 782 P.2d 753 (Colo.1989). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
People v. Peterson
green
1 sentence1988E.g., People v. Peterson, 734 P.2d 118 (Colo.1987); People v. Lepik, 629 P.2d 1080 (Colo.1981); Swisher v. Brown, 157 Colo. 378 , 402 P.2d 621 (1965). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Littleton Education Ass'n v. Arapahoe County School District, No. 6
green
2 sentences1983Fellows v. LaTronica was effectively overruled in Littleton Education Ass’n v. Arapahoe County School District, 191 Colo. 411 , 553 P.2d 793 (1976), where we held that collective bargaining between a school board and public school teachers does not violate the Colorado Constitution. 11 We reasoned that the collective bargaining process allows public officials to take cognizance of the employees’ positions but that ultimate decisions regarding terms and conditions of employment remain the exclusive province of the elected officials. 1983Fellows v. LaTronica was effectively overruled in Littleton Education Ass’n v. Arapahoe County School District, 191 Colo. 411 , 553 P.2d 793 (1976), where we held that collective bargaining between a school board and public school teachers does not violate the Colorado Constitution. 11 We reasoned that the collective bargaining process allows public officials to take cognizance of the employees’ positions but that ultimate decisions regarding terms and conditions of employment remain the exclusive province of the elected officials. | 1 | 1983–1983 |
People Ex Rel. Dunbar v. Giordano
green
2 sentences1981E. g., Elizondo v. Department of Revenue, supra; People v. Willson, 187 Colo. 141 , 528 P.2d 1315 (1974); Fry Roofing Co. v. Department of Health, 179 Colo. 223 , 499 P.2d 1176 (1972); People v. Giordano, 173 Colo. 567 , 481 P.2d 415 (1971); see generally K. 1981E. g., Elizondo v. Department of Revenue, supra; People v. Willson, 187 Colo. 141 , 528 P.2d 1315 (1974); Fry Roofing Co. v. Department of Health, 179 Colo. 223 , 499 P.2d 1176 (1972); People v. Giordano, 173 Colo. 567 , 481 P.2d 415 (1971); see generally K. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co. v. State of Colorado Department of Health Air Pollution Variance Board
green
2 sentences1981E. g., Elizondo v. Department of Revenue, supra; People v. Willson, 187 Colo. 141 , 528 P.2d 1315 (1974); Fry Roofing Co. v. Department of Health, 179 Colo. 223 , 499 P.2d 1176 (1972); People v. Giordano, 173 Colo. 567 , 481 P.2d 415 (1971); see generally K. 1981E. g., Elizondo v. Department of Revenue, supra; People v. Willson, 187 Colo. 141 , 528 P.2d 1315 (1974); Fry Roofing Co. v. Department of Health, 179 Colo. 223 , 499 P.2d 1176 (1972); People v. Giordano, 173 Colo. 567 , 481 P.2d 415 (1971); see generally K. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.