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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-82-101 (2024)

Short title

✓ C.R.S. 2024: the 2025 and 2026 sessions are not included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This article shall be known and may be cited as the "Uniform Conflict of Laws - Limitations Act".

Source: L. 84: Entire article added, p. 477, § 1, effective July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1987–2016 · 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 2× “§§ 13-82-101 to -107, C.R.S. (2008). Jenkins further argued that his negligence claims are substantively based on Colorado law, and therefore under the limitations act, section 13-82-104, Colorado's two year statute of limitations applies.”
Jenkins v. Haymore, 208 P.3d 265 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). “They argue that, instead of the borrowing statute, the trial court should have applied the Uniform Conflict of Laws-Limitations Act, sections 13-82-101 to-107, C.R.S. 2007 (UCL-LA).”
Hamilton v. Cunningham, 880 F. Supp. 1407 (D. Colo. 1995). · cites it 2× “See C.R.S. §§ 13-82-101 to 107. The Uniform Act provides that the question of limitations should be governed by the law governing the underlying claim, rather than by the local law of the state with the most significant relationship to the limitations *1413 issue as required…”
Mountain States Adjustment v. Cooke, 412 P.3d 819 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). “However, this approach led to increased forum shopping and, in 1984, the General Assembly adopted the Uniform Conflict of Laws-Limitations Act, sections 13-82-101 to - 107, C.R.S.2015, which effectively treats limitation periods as substantive law.”
Brown v. Globe Union, 661 F. Supp. 1188 (D. Colo. 1987). · cites it 2× “In 1984, however, Colorado adopted the Uniform Conflict of Laws-Limitations Act, C.R.S. § 13-82-101, et seq. In adopting the Uniform Conflict of Laws-Limitations Act, the Colorado legislature expressly repealed C.”
Woodward v. Taylor, 340 P.3d 869 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “2-01 to -05; Oregon, Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 12.410 -.”
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.