Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 13

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-40-117

Appeals

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) If either party feels aggrieved by the judgment rendered in such action before the county court, he may appeal to the district court, as in other cases tried before the county court, with the additional requirements provided in this article. (2) Upon the court's taking such appeal, all further proceedings in the case shall be stayed, and the appellate court shall thereafter issue all needful writs and process to carry out any judgment which may be rendered thereon in the appellate court. (3) If the appellee believes that the appellee may suffer serious economic harm during the pendency of the appeal, the appellee may petition the court taking the appeal to require the appellant to have an additional undertaking to cover the anticipated harm. The court shall order such undertaking only after a hearing and upon a finding that the appellee has shown a substantial likelihood of suffering such economic harm during the pendency of the appeal and that the appellee will not be adequately protected under the appeals bond and the other requirements for appeal pursuant to sections 13-40-118, 13-40-120, and 13-40-123.

Source: L. 1885: p. 229, § 17. R.S. 08: § 2617. C.L. § 6383. CSA: C. 70, § 18. CRS 53: § 58-1-18. C.R.S. 1963: § 58-1-18. L. 64: p. 470, § 4. L. 84: Entire section amended, p. 466, § 1, effective July 1. L. 85: (1) amended, p. 571, § 8, effective November 14, 1986. L. 2021: (3) amended, (SB 21-173), ch. 349, p. 2264, § 4, effective October 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2021 · leading case: Colorado Investment Services, Inc. v. Hager
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Colorado Investment Services, Inc. v. Hager (1984) coloctapp · cites it 6× “That statute requires that two undertakings be filed, one meeting the requirements of § 13-40-117, C.R.S., and the second, “additional” undertaking meeting the requirements set forth in § 13-40-120, C.”
Morgan v. District Court (1977) colo · cites it 6× “On July 7, 1976, petitioner moved to dismiss the appeal, asserting that respondent court lacked jurisdiction because defendants had failed to execute and file in county court the undertakings required by sections 13-40-117(1) and 13-40-120, C.R.”
Francam Building Corp. v. Fail (1984) coloctapp · cites it 8× “See § 13-40-117, C.R.S. Thus, a party appealing from the judgment of the district court must execute and file an undertaking with the court within 48 hours after judgment has been entered “to the effect that the appellant will pay all costs which have accrued, or may thereafter…”
Maxwell v. District Court in & for the County of Arapahoe, State of Colorado, Eighteenth Judicial District (1982) colo · cites it 3× “” In addition, section 120 requires a further undertaking, the condition of which is the same as required in cases of appeal from the county court pursuant to section 13-40-117, C.R.S.1973. Thus, the conditions set forth in section 117 are incorporated by section 120.”
Didamo v. Tyrol Sport Arms Co. (1984) coloctapp “I As a preliminary matter, we reject plaintiffs’ contention that defendant’s appeal should be dismissed as the statutorily required undertakings were not timely filed pursuant to §§ 13-40-117 and 13-40-120, C.R.S., and the trial court was without authority to so extend the…”
McDonald v. Citibank N.A. (2021) cod · cites it 5× “See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-40-117 (1) (“If either party feels aggrieved by the judgment rendered in such action before the county court, he may appeal to the district court, as in other cases tried before the county court, with the additional requirements provided in this article.”
Leisure, Inc. v. Burt Development Co. (1985) coloctapp · cites it 8× “The purpose of the undertaking required by § 13-40-117, C.R.S., is to assure payment of “all *1123 costs which have accrued, or may thereafter accrue and all damages which [landlord] may have sustained or may thereafter sustain” as a result of the tenant’s wrongful detention.”
Morgan v. District Court (1977) colo · cites it 6× “On July 7, 1976, petitioner moved to dismiss the appeal, asserting that respondent court lacked jurisdiction because defendants had failed to execute and file in county court the undertakings required by sections 13-40-117(1) and 13-40-120, C.R.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-40-117(1) — 3 cases
Morgan v. District Court (1977) colo “On July 7, 1976, petitioner moved to dismiss the appeal, asserting that respondent court lacked jurisdiction because defendants had failed to execute and file in county court the undertakings required by sections 13-40-117(1) and 13-40-120, C.R.”
Francam Building Corp. v. Fail (1984) coloctapp “See § 13-40-117, C.R.S. Thus, a party appealing from the judgment of the district court must execute and file an undertaking with the court within 48 hours after judgment has been entered “to the effect that the appellant will pay all costs which have accrued, or may thereafter…”
Morgan v. District Court (1977) colo “On July 7, 1976, petitioner moved to dismiss the appeal, asserting that respondent court lacked jurisdiction because defendants had failed to execute and file in county court the undertakings required by sections 13-40-117(1) and 13-40-120, C.R.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-40-117(2) — 1 case
McDonald v. Citibank N.A. (2021) cod “See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-40-117 (1) (“If either party feels aggrieved by the judgment rendered in such action before the county court, he may appeal to the district court, as in other cases tried before the county court, with the additional requirements provided in this article.”
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.