Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 14
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-104 (2024)

Uniformity of application and construction

✓ 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

(1) This article shall be so applied and construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this article among those states which enact it.

(2) The term "irretrievable breakdown" shall be construed as being similar to other terms having a like import in the law of other jurisdictions adopting this or a similar law.

Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 520, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 46-1-3.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: In re the Marriage of Cargill, 843 P.2d 1335 (Colo. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Marriage of Cargill, 843 P.2d 1335 (Colo. 1993). · cites it 14× “Section 14-10-104 provides that the Act should be applied so as' to make the laws of the states which adopt the Act uniform.”
In Re the Marriage of Hunt, 909 P.2d 525 (Colo. 1995). · cites it 4× “In construing the UDMA, we are guided by section 14-10-104(1), 6B C.R.S. (1987), which states that "[t]his article [the UDMA] shall be so applied and construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this article among those…”
In Re the Marriage of Schmedeman, 190 P.3d 788 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “Therefore, we may look to the Uniform Act and cases that have interpreted the Uniform Act for guidance.”
In Re the Marriage of Wells, 850 P.2d 694 (Colo. 1993). · cites it 2× “650, 653 (1991) (holding that in order to promote consistency, courts should ordinarily adopt the construction given uniform statutes by other jurisdictions unless the construction is manifestly erroneous); see also § 14-10-104, 6B C.R.S. (1987) (directing courts to apply and…”
In Re Custody of C.C.R.S., 872 P.2d 1337 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “In accordance with the mandate of § 14-10-104, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B), to apply and construe the provisions of the Uniform Act uniformly with those states that have enacted it, see In re Marriage of Wells, 850 P.”
In Re the Marriage of Rose, 134 P.3d 559 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “We also must consider whether one party’s interpretation has become the dominant view in cases decided by courts in other states.”
People v. Sorrendino, 37 P.3d 501 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “5) authorized district courts, in domestic relations cases, to "award interim legal custody of a child" as part of a temporary restraining order "when such award is reasonably related to preventing domestic abuse as defined in section 14-10-104 or preventing a child from…”
In Re Marriage of West, 94 P.3d 1248 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “See § 14-10-104(1), C.R.S.2003 ("This article shall be so applied and construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this article among those states which enact it.”
In Re the Marriage of Stumpf, 932 P.2d 845 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “Section 14-10-104, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol.”
In Re the Marriage of Swink, 807 P.2d 1245 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “See § 14-10-104, C.R.S. (1987 Repl.Vol. 6B). The underlying purposes of promoting amicable settlement and mitigating potential harm to dissolution litigants and their children indicate that the General Assembly intended that courts consider not only matters having a direct…”
In Re the Marriage of Parsons, 30 P.3d 868 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001). “See § 14-10-104(1), C.R.8.2000 (Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act should be construed to promote uniformity with other states that enact it); In re Marriage of Cargill, supra.”
Marriage of Clark, 2025 COA 75, 578 P.3d 853. · cites it 2× “See § 14-10-104(1), C.R.S. 2025 (the legislature’s “general purpose” in enacting the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act is to promote uniformity of the law).”
Show all 13 citing cases →
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-10-104(1): 7 cases
In Re the Marriage of Hunt, 909 P.2d 525 (Colo. 1995). “In construing the UDMA, we are guided by section 14-10-104(1), 6B C.R.S. (1987), which states that "[t]his article [the UDMA] shall be so applied and construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this article among those…”
In Re the Marriage of Schmedeman, 190 P.3d 788 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). “Therefore, we may look to the Uniform Act and cases that have interpreted the Uniform Act for guidance.”
In Re the Marriage of Rose, 134 P.3d 559 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). “We also must consider whether one party’s interpretation has become the dominant view in cases decided by courts in other states.”
In Re Marriage of West, 94 P.3d 1248 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004). “See § 14-10-104(1), C.R.S.2003 ("This article shall be so applied and construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law with respect to the subject of this article among those states which enact it.”
In Re the Marriage of Parsons, 30 P.3d 868 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001). “See § 14-10-104(1), C.R.8.2000 (Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act should be construed to promote uniformity with other states that enact it); In re Marriage of Cargill, supra.”
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.