Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 11
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 11-51-101 (2026)

Short title and purpose

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) This article shall be known and may be cited as the "Colorado Securities Act".

(2) The purposes of this article are to protect investors and maintain public confidence in securities markets while avoiding unreasonable burdens on participants in capital markets. This article is remedial in nature and is to be broadly construed to effectuate its purposes.

(3) The provisions of this article and rules made under this article shall be coordinated with the federal acts and statutes to which references are made in this article and rules and regulations promulgated under those federal acts and statutes, to the extent coordination is consistent with both the purposes and the provisions of this article.

Source: L. 90: Entire article R&RE, p. 700, § 1, effective July 1.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 11-51-101 as it existed prior to 1990.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 45 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: Thompson v. People, 2020 CO 72 (Colo. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Thompson v. People, 2020 CO 72 (Colo. 2020). · cites it 8× “If so, the court must then decide whether the division below erred in concluding that (1) the promissory note at issue was a security under the family resemblance test; (2) any error in the jury instruction defining “security” was not plain; and (3) consecutive sentences were…”
Rosenthal v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 908 P.2d 1095 (Colo. 1995). · cites it 9× “1, §§ 11-51-101 to -802, 1990 Colo. Sess. Laws 700 , and recodified as amended at §§ 11-51-501 and 11-51-604, *1098 4B C.”
Cagle v. Mathers Fam. Trust, 295 P.3d 460 (Colo. 2013). · cites it 9× “§§ 11-51-101 to -908, C.R.S. (2012). . The plaintiffs also claimed misrepresentation under Texas law.”
People v. Rivera, 56 P.3d 1155 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 5× “People, supra (applying § 18-1-508(4), court found legislative history supported conclusion that legislature did not in *1163 tend arson statute's culpable mental state to apply to endangerment provision).”
Feigin v. Alexa Grp., Ltd., 19 P.3d 23 (Colo. 2001). · cites it 2× “Nothing in the plain language of the Colorado Securities Act (the "Act"), at sections 11-51-101 to ~908, 3 C.R.S. (2000), dictates such a relationship.”
People v. Prendergast, 87 P.3d 175 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “Section 11-51-101(2), C.R.8.2002. The CSA is *179 construed broadly to effectuate these purposes.”
Rome v. Mandel, 405 P.3d 387 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “Opinion by JUDGE NAVARRO ¶ 1 The Securities Commissioner of Colorado, Gerald Rome, brought this civil enforcement action urider the Colorado Securities Act (CSA), §§ 11-51-101 to -908, C.R.S. 2016, against defendants, Marc Mandel and Wall Street Radio, Inc.”
Joseph v. Viatica Mgmt., LLC, 55 P.3d 264 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “2001 (provisions and rules under the Act shall be coordinated with federal acts and statutes to the extent consistent with the purposes of the Act).”
Capitalvalue Advisors, LLC v. K2D, Inc., 321 P.3d 602 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 4× “Specifically, the court found that the agreement violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Colorado Securities Act, section 11-51-101, C.R.8.2012, because it called for CapitalValue, an unlicensed securities broker, to market CPF's stock.”
Griffin v. SW Devanney & Co., Inc., 775 P.2d 555 (Colo. 1989). · cites it 2× “Section 11-51-117(2) of the Colorado Securities Act of 1981, §§ 11-51-101 to 11- 51-129, 4B C.R.S. (1987), states that “[n]o provision of this article authorizes the [Securities [Cjommissioner or any of his officers or employees to disclose [any information filed with or…”
Raymond Lee Org., Inc. v. Div. of Sec., 556 P.2d 1209 (Colo. 1976). · cites it 4× “We simply hold that the Colorado Securities Act (section 11-51-101 et seq., C.R.S. 1973), which is here involved, does not apply in this case.”
Westmark Asset Mgmt. Corp. v. Joseph, 37 P.3d 516 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 5× “" As set forth in § 11-51-101(2), C.R.8.2001, "The purposes of [the Act] are to protect investors and maintain public confidence in securities markets while avoiding unreasonable burdens on participants in capital markets.”
Show all 45 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 11-51-101(2) — 12 cases
Thompson v. People, 2020 CO 72 (Colo. 2020). “If so, the court must then decide whether the division below erred in concluding that (1) the promissory note at issue was a security under the family resemblance test; (2) any error in the jury instruction defining “security” was not plain; and (3) consecutive sentences were…”
People v. Rivera, 56 P.3d 1155 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). “People, supra (applying § 18-1-508(4), court found legislative history supported conclusion that legislature did not in *1163 tend arson statute's culpable mental state to apply to endangerment provision).”
Cagle v. Mathers Fam. Trust, 295 P.3d 460 (Colo. 2013). “§§ 11-51-101 to -908, C.R.S. (2012). . The plaintiffs also claimed misrepresentation under Texas law.”
Feigin v. Alexa Grp., Ltd., 19 P.3d 23 (Colo. 2001). “Nothing in the plain language of the Colorado Securities Act (the "Act"), at sections 11-51-101 to ~908, 3 C.R.S. (2000), dictates such a relationship.”
People v. Prendergast, 87 P.3d 175 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “Section 11-51-101(2), C.R.8.2002. The CSA is *179 construed broadly to effectuate these purposes.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 11-51-101(3) — 9 cases
Thompson v. People, 2020 CO 72 (Colo. 2020). “If so, the court must then decide whether the division below erred in concluding that (1) the promissory note at issue was a security under the family resemblance test; (2) any error in the jury instruction defining “security” was not plain; and (3) consecutive sentences were…”
People v. Rivera, 56 P.3d 1155 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). “People, supra (applying § 18-1-508(4), court found legislative history supported conclusion that legislature did not in *1163 tend arson statute's culpable mental state to apply to endangerment provision).”
Cagle v. Mathers Fam. Trust, 295 P.3d 460 (Colo. 2013). “§§ 11-51-101 to -908, C.R.S. (2012). . The plaintiffs also claimed misrepresentation under Texas law.”
Rome v. Mandel, 405 P.3d 387 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). “Opinion by JUDGE NAVARRO ¶ 1 The Securities Commissioner of Colorado, Gerald Rome, brought this civil enforcement action urider the Colorado Securities Act (CSA), §§ 11-51-101 to -908, C.R.S. 2016, against defendants, Marc Mandel and Wall Street Radio, Inc.”
The People of the State of Colorado, Petitioner: v. Kelly James Schnorenberg., 2025 CO 43 (Colo. 2025).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 11-51-101(8) — 5 cases
Cagle v. Mathers Fam. Trust, 295 P.3d 460 (Colo. 2013). “§§ 11-51-101 to -908, C.R.S. (2012). . The plaintiffs also claimed misrepresentation under Texas law.”
People v. Prendergast, 87 P.3d 175 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “Section 11-51-101(2), C.R.8.2002. The CSA is *179 construed broadly to effectuate these purposes.”
Joseph v. Viatica Mgmt., LLC, 55 P.3d 264 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). “2001 (provisions and rules under the Act shall be coordinated with federal acts and statutes to the extent consistent with the purposes of the Act).”
Westmark Asset Mgmt. Corp. v. Joseph, 37 P.3d 516 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001). “" As set forth in § 11-51-101(2), C.R.8.2001, "The purposes of [the Act] are to protect investors and maintain public confidence in securities markets while avoiding unreasonable burdens on participants in capital markets.”
First Nat'l Bank of Durango v. Lyons, 349 P.3d 1161 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.