(1) If any person enters upon or into any lands, tenements, mining claims, or other possessions with force or strong hand or multitude of people, whether any person is actually upon or in the same at the time of such entry, or if any person by threats of violence or injury to the party in possession or by such words or actions as have a natural tendency to excite fear or apprehension of danger gains possession of any lands, tenements, mining claims, or other possessions and detains and holds the same, such person so offending is guilty of a forcible entry and detainer within the meaning of this article.
(2) If any person enters peaceably upon any lands, tenements, mining claims, or other possessions, whether any person is actually in or upon the same at the time of such entry and by force turns the party in possession out or, by threats or by words or actions which have a natural tendency to excite fear or apprehension of danger, frightens the party out of possession and detains and holds the same, such person so offending is guilty of a forcible detainer within the meaning of this article.
(3) If any person enters upon or into any lands, tenements, mining claims, or other possessions by force or by threats of violence, or words or actions which have a natural tendency to excite fear or apprehension of danger, and intimidates the party entitled to possession from returning upon or possessing the same, such person so offending is guilty of a forcible entry within the meaning of this article.
Source: L. 1887: p. 271, § 2. R.S. 08: § 2600. C.L. § 6366. CSA: C. 70, § 1. CRS 53: § 58-1-1. C.R.S. 1963: § 58-1-1.
Notes of Decisions
Francam Bldg. Corp. v. Fail, 646 P.2d 345 (Colo. 1982).
· cites it 10× “My review of the Forcible Entry and Detainer Statute, section 13-40-101 et seq., and its apparent legislative purpose, convinces me that the notice provision of section 13-40-104(1)(d), C.”
Schuler v. Oldervik, 143 P.3d 1197 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “In response, plaintiffs filed an FED action pursuant to § 13-40-101, et seq., C.R.S.2005, in county court and claimed that defendants were trespassing on, blocking access to, and unlawfully possessing the driveway that they owned outright or by adverse possession.”
W. Cities Broad., Inc. v. Schueller, 830 P.2d 1074 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992).
“In its cross-appeal, WCBI first contends that the trial court erred in determining that Schueller complied with the requirements of § 13-40-101, et seq., C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
Beeghly v. MacK, 20 P.3d 610 (Colo. 2001).
“See §§ 13-40-101 to 13-40-128, 5 C.R.S. (2000); Butler v.”
Butler v. Farner, 704 P.2d 853 (Colo. 1985).
“) statute, §§ 13-40-101 to -123, 6 C.R.S. (1973 & 1984 Supp.”
Butler v. Lembeck, 182 P.3d 1185 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
“Here, unlike in More and Torres, this case did not arise as a forcible entry and detainer action, see §§ 13-40-101 to -126, C.R.8.2007, or an action to recover a security deposit that was willfully withheld under section 38-12-103.”
Elrick v. Merrill, 10 P.3d 689 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).
“1985) (acknowledging that the provisions of § 13-40-101, et seq., apply only when a landlord attempts to repossess property by following the procedural requirements of the statute, rather than by proceeding in some other manner, such as pursuant to a rental agreement).”
Clark v. Morris, 710 P.2d 1130 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “In February 1979, when once again the rent was not paid when due, the landlord, acting pursuant to § 13-40-101, et seq., C.R.S. (1978 Repl.Vol.”
Grombone v. Krekel, 754 P.2d 777 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988).
“105, for immediate possession and damages, pursuant to the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act, § 13-40-101, et seq., C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-40-101(2) — 1 case
Francam Bldg. Corp. v. Fail, 646 P.2d 345 (Colo. 1982).
“My review of the Forcible Entry and Detainer Statute, section 13-40-101 et seq., and its apparent legislative purpose, convinces me that the notice provision of section 13-40-104(1)(d), 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.