statute to create exception (Colorado) · Go Syfert
← Colorado issues

statute to create exception in Colorado

10 Colorado opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2026 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.

Followed or applied (4)

CaseFollowedCited
Town of Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture, L.L.C.green
colo · 2000 · cited in 6 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2001–2026
2 sentences

2026See Town of Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture, L.L.C. , 3 P.3d 30, 35 ( Colo. 2000 ) ( stating that " [i] n assessing the plain language, the court should not read a statute to create an exception that the plain language does not suggest, warrant, or mandate" ) .

2026See Town of Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture, L.L.C. , 3 P.3d 30, 35 (Colo. 2000) (stating that "[i]n assessing the plain language, the court should not read a statute to create an exception that the plain language does not suggest, warrant, or mandate").

46
Bruce v. City of Colorado Springsgreen
colo · 2006 · cited in 4 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2009–2010
2 sentences

2010We may not "read a statute to create an exception that the plain language does not suggest, warrant, or mandate." Bruce v. City of Colorado Springs, 129 P.3d 988, 993 (Colo.2006) (internal quotations omitted).

2009"In examining the plain language, we do not `read a statute to create an exception that the plain language does not suggest, warrant, or mandate.'" Bruce v. City of Colorado Springs, 129 P.3d 988, 993 (Colo.2006) (quoting Town of Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture, L.L.C., 3 P.3d 30, 35 (Colo.2000)).

44
Department of Transportation v. City of Idaho Springsgreen
coloctapp · 2008 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010
1 sentence

2010However, "we must avoid interpretations that lead to absurd results." Department of Transportation v. City of Idaho Springs, 192 P.3d 490, 494 (Colo.App.2008).

11
Common Sense Alliance v. Davidsongreen
colo · 2000 · cited in 1 Colorado opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
2 sentences

2000See Common Sense Alliance v. Davidson, 995 P.2d 748, 753 (Colo.2000).

2000See Common Sense Alliance v. Davidson, 995 P.2d 748, 753 (Colo.2000).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Colorado. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (1)

CaseCitedYears
Colorado Common Cause v. Coffman green
coloctapp · 2004
2 sentences

2004Section 2-4-101, C.R.S.2003; Town of Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture, L.L.C., 3 P.3d 30 (Colo.2000); Colo. Common Cause v. Coffman, 85 P.3d 551 , 2003 WL 1562241 (Colo.App.

2004Section 2-4-101, C.R.S.2003; Town of Telluride v. Lot Thirty-Four Venture, L.L.C., 3 P.3d 30 (Colo.2000); Colo. Common Cause v. Coffman, 85 P.3d 551 , 2003 WL 1562241 (Colo.App.

12004–2004

Statutes the citing opinions construe

CO § Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-4-102 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CO 10 (2000–2026) MN 2 (1989–1999) FL 2 (1977–1980) WA 2 (2015–2015) WY 2 (2010–2010)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check