Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-16-104 (2026)

When plaintiff recovers costs

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

If any person sues in any court of this state in any action, real, personal, or mixed, or upon any statute for any offense or wrong immediately personal to the plaintiff and recovers any debt or damages in such action, then the plaintiff or demandant shall have judgment to recover against the defendant his costs to be taxed; and the same shall be recovered, together with the debt or damages, by execution, except in the cases mentioned in this article.

Source: R.S. p. 154, § 4. G.L. § 326. G.S. § 400. R.S. 08: § 1055. C.L. § 6571. CSA: C. 43, § 1. CRS 53: § 33-1-4. C.R.S. 1963: § 33-1-4.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 43 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2022 · leading case: Acierno Ex Rel. Acierno v. Garyfallou, 2016 COA 91 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
Acierno Ex Rel. Acierno v. Garyfallou, 2016 COA 91 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 8× “” Significantly, section 13-16-104 contains language very similar to the language in 13-16-106: “the plaintiff or demandant shall have judgment to recover against the defendant his costs to be taxed.”
Schuessler v. Wolter, 310 P.3d 151 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 3× “Law 188 A plaintiff is entitled to recover all of his costs under the mandatory provisions of section 13-16-104, C.R.S.2011. But the record must contain evidence that costs are necessary before those costs will be awarded.”
Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. City of Golden, 113 P.3d 119 (Colo. 2005). · cites it 7× “1999), the court of appeals found that section 13-16-104, C.R.S. (2004), only generally provides for a cost award.”
Miller v. Hancock, 410 P.3d 819 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 15× “Miller sought to recover his costs as the prevailing party pursuant to section 13-16-104, C.R.S. 2017. Aragon and Hancock each sought to recover their post-offer costs pursuant to section 13-17-202, arguing that the final judgment Miller recovered did not exceed their respective…”
MacKall v. Jalisco Int'l, Inc., 28 P.3d 975 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “The court based its fee award on § 13-16-104, C.R.S.2000, and C.R.C.P. 54(d).”
Rocky Mountain Animal Def. v. Colorado Div. of Wildlife, 100 P.3d 508 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “Costs Rocky Mountain contends the trial court erred in not granting its motion for costs under § 13-16-104, C.R.S.2003. We disagree. Although generally costs may be awarded to the prevailing party in the court’s discretion, costs against the State of Colorado, its officers, or…”
Dennis I. Spencer Contractor, Inc. v. City of Aurora, 884 P.2d 326 (Colo. 1994). · cites it 4× “Section 13-16-104, 6A C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
Dillen v. Healthone, L.L.C., 108 P.3d 297 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 6× “Dillen also argues that, as a prevailing party, she is entitled to an award of costs under § 13-16-104, C.R.S.2003, whether or not the trial court expressly determined she was a prevailing party pursuant to C.”
City of Westminster v. Centric-Jones Constructors, 100 P.3d 472 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “Costs and Attorney Fees The prevailing party is entitled to costs by statute, § 13-16-104, C.R.S.2002, and may be entitled to attorney fees by contract.”
Winkler v. Rocky Mountain Conf. of the United Methodist Church, 923 P.2d 152 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “96 against both Chambers and the Conference jointly and severally pursuant to § 13-16-104, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6A). I.”
Pastrana v. Hudock, 140 P.3d 188 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “54,” for the reason that plaintiff was “the prevailing party, having exceeded the Defendant’s offer in this case of $1,000.”
Weeks v. City of Colorado Springs, 928 P.2d 1346 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 6× “54(d) or § 13-16-104, C.R.S. (1987 RepLVol. 6A). We reverse and remand for reconsideration of whether to *1350 award costs to plaintiffs under C.”
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.