(1) It is declared to be the policy of the general assembly, recognizing the close relationship between professional gambling and other organized crime, to restrain all persons from seeking profit from gambling activities in this state; to restrain all persons from patronizing such activities when conducted for the profit of any person; to safeguard the public against the evils induced by common gamblers and common gambling houses; and at the same time to preserve the freedom of the press and to avoid restricting participation by individuals in sport and social pastimes which are not for profit, do not affect the public, and do not breach the peace.
(2) All the provisions of this article shall be liberally construed to achieve these ends and administered and enforced with a view to carrying out the declaration of policy stated in subsection (1) of this section.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 477, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-10-101.
Notes of Decisions
Charnes v. Cent. City Opera House Ass'n, 773 P.2d 546 (Colo. 1989).
· cites it 3× “In enacting the statutory definition of “gambling” and in proscribing various forms of that activity, the General Assembly set forth the following declaration of purpose in section 18-10-101, 8B C.R.S. (1986): (1) It is declared to be the policy of the general assembly,…”
Condado Aruba Caribbean Hotel v. Tickel, 561 P.2d 23 (Colo. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 3× “Section 18-10-101, C.R.S.1973. This declaration evidences a continuation of the policy against gambling for profit in Colorado, and we therefore conclude that gambling debts owed to a for-profit gambling business are still unenforceable in this state.”
Houston v. Younghans, 580 P.2d 801 (Colo. 1978).
· cites it 5× “The trial court entered judgment for respondent, ruling that the new gambling code, section 18-10-101, et seq., C.R.S. 1973, changed the common law and specifically exempted “social gambling” from the ambit of forbidden conduct.”
Berckefeldt v. Hammer, 616 P.2d 183 (Colo. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 3× “After trial to the court, the court entered findings reflecting the occurrence of the above events, but, nevertheless it entered judgment in favor of defendant, concluding that the wager was not incidental to a bona fide social relationship and as such that it was an…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-10-101(1) — 1 case
Berckefeldt v. Hammer, 616 P.2d 183 (Colo. Ct. App. 1980).
“After trial to the court, the court entered findings reflecting the occurrence of the above events, but, nevertheless it entered judgment in favor of defendant, concluding that the wager was not incidental to a bona fide social relationship and as such that it was an…”
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.