Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 13
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-110 (2026)

Causes barred in state of origin

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

If a cause of action arises in another state or territory or in a foreign country and, by the laws thereof, an action thereon cannot be maintained in that state, territory, or foreign country by reason of lapse of time, the cause of action shall not be maintained in this state.

Source: L. 86: Entire article R&RE, p. 700, § 1, effective July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 84 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: Jenkins v. Panama Canal Ry. Co., 208 P.3d 238 (Colo. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jenkins v. Panama Canal Ry. Co., 208 P.3d 238 (Colo. 2009). · cites it 21× “It argued in part that Colorado's borrowing statute, section 13-80-110, C.R.S. (2008), applied to Jenkins's action because his claims arose in Panama.”
Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Hartman, 911 P.2d 1094 (Colo. 1996). · cites it 8× “Both Dean Witter and Norwest Bank raised the statute of limitations as affirmative defenses, specifically, section 13-80-110(l)(d), 6 C.R.S. (1973) (current version at section 13-80-101(l)(a), 6A C.”
Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100 (Colo. 1992). · cites it 6× “Finally, the court of appeals held that the six-year limitation period applicable to Lorenz's 1975 tort claim, see § 13-80-110(1)(g), 6 C.R.S. (1973), began to run on July 26, 1975, the date following Lorenz's termination, rather than on July 22, 1975, the date on which Lorenz…”
Samuel Perez v. By the Rockies, LLC, & Duane Layton, 2023 COA 109 (Colo. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “5 became effective July 1, 1986, but the earlier version of the statute, § 13-80-110, C.R.S. 1985, also had a six-year limitations period.”
Austin v. Litvak, 682 P.2d 41 (Colo. 1984). · cites it 6× “This analysis could lead to the logical conclusion that the entire statutory scheme is unconstitutional and would leave no statute of limitations applicable to medical malpractice claims or the general six-year statute of limitations (section 13-80-110, C.”
Jenkins v. Haymore, 208 P.3d 265 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “Among other things, defendants argued that plaintiffs' case was barred by a one-year limitation period through the operation of Colorado's borrowing statute, section 13-80-110, C.R.98.2007. Treating defendants' motion as a request for summary judgment, the trial court ruled that…”
Martinez v. Cont'l Enter., 730 P.2d 308 (Colo. 1986). · cites it 5× “2 After a bench trial, the trial court concluded that although the respondents’ promissory note claim was barred by section 13-80-110, 6 C.R.S. (1973), a six-year statute of limitation, their claim for fore *312 closure of the deed of trust was timely under section 38-40-105,…”
Brodeur v. Am. Home Assurance Co., 169 P.3d 139 (Colo. 2007). · cites it 3× “Doyle involved the interpretation of section 13-80-110, C.R.S. (1973), which established a six-year statute of limitations on causes of action.”
Duncan v. Schuster-Graham Homes, Inc., 578 P.2d 637 (Colo. 1978). · cites it 6× “Section 13-80-110, C.R.S. 1973. See F & S Construction Co.”
McClanahan v. Am. Gilsonite Co., 494 F. Supp. 1334 (D. Colo. 1980). · cites it 6× “Therefore the governing statute of limitations is section 13-80-110, C.R.S.1973. 1. Applicability of Section 13-80-127.”
Persichini v. Brad Ragan, Inc., 735 P.2d 168 (Colo. 1987). · cites it 6× “Section 13-80-110, 6 C.R.S. (1973) states: (1) Except as otherwise provided in section 4-2-725, C.”
Crownover v. Gleichman, 574 P.2d 497 (Colo. 1977). · cites it 6× “(Section 13-80-110, C.R.S.1973). Thus the medical profession already has been provided a privileged sanctuary by enactment of the special two-year statute of limitations covering professional negligence by physicians.”
Show all 84 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-110(1) — 3 cases
City of Colorado Springs v. Timberlane Assocs., 824 P.2d 776 (Colo. 1992).
Matter of Est. of Light, 585 P.2d 311 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978).
Hartman v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 897 P.2d 842 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-110(1)(a) — 1 case
Interbank Investments, L.L.C. v. Vail Valley Consol. Water Dist., 12 P.3d 1224 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-110(1)(e) — 1 case
Hickman v. North Sterling Irrigation Dist., 748 P.2d 1349 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-110(1)(g) — 2 cases
Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100 (Colo. 1992). “Finally, the court of appeals held that the six-year limitation period applicable to Lorenz's 1975 tort claim, see § 13-80-110(1)(g), 6 C.R.S. (1973), began to run on July 26, 1975, the date following Lorenz's termination, rather than on July 22, 1975, the date on which Lorenz…”
Persichini v. Brad Ragan, Inc., 735 P.2d 168 (Colo. 1987). “Section 13-80-110, 6 C.R.S. (1973) states: (1) Except as otherwise provided in section 4-2-725, C.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-110(g) — 1 case
Full Draw Prods. v. Easton Sports, Inc., 85 F. Supp. 2d 1001 (D. Colo. 2000).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-110(l)(a) — 5 cases
United Bank of Denver Nat'l Ass'n v. Wright, 660 P.2d 510 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983).
Samples-Ehrlich v. Simon, 876 P.2d 108 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).
Wasinger v. Reid, 705 P.2d 533 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).
Repub. Nat'l Bank v. Meridian Props., Inc., 530 F. Supp. 169 (D. Colo. 1982).
Frisco Motel P'ship v. H.S.M. Corp., 791 P.2d 1195 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-110(l)(b) — 1 case
Leavitt v. Smith, 736 P.2d 1269 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-110(l)(d) — 5 cases
Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Hartman, 911 P.2d 1094 (Colo. 1996). “Both Dean Witter and Norwest Bank raised the statute of limitations as affirmative defenses, specifically, section 13-80-110(l)(d), 6 C.R.S. (1973) (current version at section 13-80-101(l)(a), 6A C.”
Carlson v. McCoy, 566 P.2d 1073 (Colo. 1977).
Smith v. Union Supply Co., 675 P.2d 333 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983).
Richards Engineers, Inc. v. Spanel, 745 P.2d 1031 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987).
Frisco Motel P'ship v. H.S.M. Corp., 791 P.2d 1195 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-110(l)(e) — 2 cases
Canady v. Shelden, 683 P.2d 1205 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983).
Hickman v. North Sterling Irrigation Dist., 748 P.2d 1351 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-110(l)(g) — 4 cases
Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Hartman, 911 P.2d 1094 (Colo. 1996). “Both Dean Witter and Norwest Bank raised the statute of limitations as affirmative defenses, specifically, section 13-80-110(l)(d), 6 C.R.S. (1973) (current version at section 13-80-101(l)(a), 6A C.”
Martin Marietta Corp. v. Lorenz, 823 P.2d 100 (Colo. 1992). “Finally, the court of appeals held that the six-year limitation period applicable to Lorenz's 1975 tort claim, see § 13-80-110(1)(g), 6 C.R.S. (1973), began to run on July 26, 1975, the date following Lorenz's termination, rather than on July 22, 1975, the date on which Lorenz…”
Lee v. Colorado Dep't of Health, 718 P.2d 221 (Colo. 1986).
Punahele v. United Air Lines, Inc., 743 F. Supp. 758 (D. Colo. 1990).
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.