The general assembly hereby finds and determines
that illicit traffic in stolen valuable articles is encouraged by the absence of any required record-
keeping system by persons purchasing such valuable articles. The general assembly further finds
that law enforcement officials are hindered in the identification and recovery of stolen valuable
articles, and that law enforcement officials are hindered in the discovery and identification of
persons selling stolen valuable articles due to the absence of such a required record-keeping
system. Accordingly, it is the intent of the general assembly, by enacting this article, to aid law
enforcement officials in the discovery and identification of sellers of stolen valuable articles and
in the identification and recovery of stolen valuable articles by providing a mandatory record-
keeping and reporting system by purchasers and by providing a holding period during which
time such articles shall not be disposed of or altered in any manner. Local governments may
adopt ordinances more strict than the provisions of this article.
Source: L. 81: Entire article added, p. 1011, § 1, effective May 22.
Notes of Decisions
Rathke v. MacFarlane, 648 P.2d 648 (Colo. 1982).
· cites it 16× “, from enforcing section 18-16-101 et seq., C.R.S.1973 (1978 Repl.”
Hytken v. Wake, 68 P.3d 508 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “Therefore a nonresident plaintiff's multiple failures to file a cost bond as required by § 18-16-101 could constitute "neglect" as that term is used in § 13-16-102.”
Exotic Coins, Inc. v. Beacom, 699 P.2d 930 (Colo. 1985).
· cites it 7× “LOHR, Justice: These two cases, which we have consolidated for decision, present broad-ranging challenges to the constitutionality of the Purchasers of Valuable Articles Act, §§ 18-16-101 to -110, 8 C.R.S. (1984 Supp.”
Old Repub. Nat'l Title Ins. Co. v. Kornegay, 292 P.3d 1111 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 3× “2009), a division of this court held that a plaintiff's status as a non-citizen of the United States did not preclude her from being considered a "resident of this state" for purposes of the cost bond statute, section 18-16-101, C.R.S.2011. The division cited case law…”
Walcott v. Dist. Court, Second Jud. Dist., 924 P.2d 163 (Colo. 1996).
“Relying upon sections 18-16-101 and 13-16-102, the district court concluded that the Walcotts could not proceed to litigate their claims as plaintiffs until Brenda Walcott submitted a cost bond as security for potential costs.”
Rotz v. Hyatt Corp., 296 P.3d 164 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 5× “14 Defendant points out that the division's opinion states that "[u)nder §§ 18-16-101 and 13-16-102 the court has no discretion regarding the filing of a cost bond, and dismissal for failure to do so is mandatory" unless the nonresident plaintiff can establish indigency or…”
Kahn v. Quintana, 811 P.2d 458 (Colo. Ct. App. 1991).
“In their cross-appeal, plaintiffs basically contend that the court erred in concluding that defendant had acted in good faith, that this conclusion was based on an erroneous finding that defendant had complied with § 18-16-101, et seq.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-16-101(2) — 1 case
Rotz v. Hyatt Corp., 296 P.3d 164 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
“14 Defendant points out that the division's opinion states that "[u)nder §§ 18-16-101 and 13-16-102 the court has no discretion regarding the filing of a cost bond, and dismissal for failure to do so is mandatory" unless the nonresident plaintiff can establish indigency or…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-16-101(8) — 1 case
Rotz v. Hyatt Corp., 296 P.3d 164 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
“14 Defendant points out that the division's opinion states that "[u)nder §§ 18-16-101 and 13-16-102 the court has no discretion regarding the filing of a cost bond, and dismissal for failure to do so is mandatory" unless the nonresident plaintiff can establish indigency or…”
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.