When declaratory relief is sought, all
persons shall be made parties who have or claim any interest which would be affected by the
declaration, and no declaration shall prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the proceeding.
In any proceeding which involves the validity of a municipal ordinance or franchise, such
municipality shall be made a party and is entitled to be heard, and, if the statute, ordinance, or
franchise is alleged to be unconstitutional, the attorney general of the state shall also be served
with a copy of the proceeding and be entitled to be heard.
Source: L. 23: p. 270, § 11. CSA: C. 93, § 88. CRS 53: § 77-11-11. C.R.S. 1963: § 77-
11-11.
Cross references: For similar provisions in court rules, see C.R.C.P. 57(j).
ARTICLE 51.5
Review of Land Use Decisions
Cross references: For the legislative declaration contained in the 1997 act enacting this
article, see section 1 of chapter 78, Session Laws of Colorado 1997.
Notes of Decisions
Accetta v. Brooks Towers Residences Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 2019 CO 11 (Colo. 2019).
· cites it 11× “57(j), and section 13-51-115, C.R.S. (2018). ¶8 The district court ultimately denied the Association's motion to dismiss, but it agreed with the Association that Accetta was required to join all of the other unit owners before the case could proceed.”
Peterson v. Martinez, 707 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 2× “See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-51-115 ; D. Colo. L.”
People ex rel. A.M.K., 68 P.3d 563 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “Father acknowledges that he has not notified the attorney general of a facial challenge to the constitutionality of § 14-10-1283, as is required under § 13-51-115, C.R.S.2002, C.RCP. 57(j), and CAR.”
Two G's, Inc. v. Kalbin, 666 P.2d 129 (Colo. 1983).
· cites it 5× “” However, even if we were to construe the complaint liberally in order to characterize this proceeding as one for declaratory judgment, the licensee failed to meet the essential conditions of making the City and County of Denver a party and serving the state attorney general…”
Lucchesi v. State, 807 P.2d 1185 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 3× “The statute governing declaratory judgment actions, § 13-51-115, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6A), requires the joinder of any person whose interest would be “affected” by the declaration.”
Curnow v. Yarbrough, 676 P.2d 1177 (Colo. 1984).
· cites it 3× “Section 13-51-115, C.R.S. and C.R.C.P. 570).”
Constitution Assocs. v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 930 P.2d 556 (Colo. 1997).
“§ 13-51-115, 6A C.R.S. (1987). It was therefore proper for New Hampshire to name Constitution as a party defendant and, once joined, Constitution may fully participate in the action.”
In the Interest of E.L.M.C., 100 P.3d 546 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “2003, not considered because attorney general not notified as required under § 13-51-115, C.R.S.2003; Vogt, J., concurring specially to emphasize the Troxel presumption of the legal parent’s first and prior right to custody may be rebutted by evidence establishing that the…”
People v. Couillard, 131 P.3d 1146 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “See § 13-51-115, C.R.S. 2005; C.R.C.P. 57(j).”
Taylor Morrison of Colo., Inc. v. Bemas Constr., Inc., 411 P.3d 72 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “¶ 32 We are not persuaded otherwise by Taylor's suggestion that Terracon cannot properly raise the issue of the HPA's retrospectivity because Terracon did not notify the Attorney General of this constitutional argument pursuant to section 13-51-115, 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.