(1) A person commits a class 2 misdemeanor if, in
the course of business, he knowingly:
(a) Uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure, or any other device for falsely
determining or recording any quality or quantity; or
(b) Sells, offers, or exposes for sale or delivers less than the represented quantity of any
commodity or service; or
(c) Takes or attempts to take more than the represented quantity of any commodity or
service when as buyer he furnishes the weight or measure; or
(d) Sells, offers, or exposes for sale an adulterated or mislabeled commodity.
"Adulterated" means varying from the standard of composition or quality prescribed by or
pursuant to any statute of the state of Colorado or the United States providing criminal penalties
for such variance, or set by established commercial usage. "Mislabeled" means varying from the
standard of truth or disclosure in labeling prescribed or pursuant to any statute of the state of
Colorado or the United States providing criminal penalties for such variance, or set by
established commercial usage; or
(e) Makes a false or misleading statement in any advertisement addressed to the public
or to a substantial segment thereof for the purpose of promoting the purchase or sale of property
or services.
(f) Repealed.
Source: L. 71: R&RE, p. 441, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 40-5-301. L. 79: (1)(f) repealed, p.
730, § 11, effective July 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
9
cases, 1976–2012 · leading case:
People v. Blair, 579 P.2d 1133 (Colo. 1978).
People v. Blair, 579 P.2d 1133 (Colo. 1978).
· cites it 27× “Section 18-5-301, C.R.S.1973 was not enacted until 1971.”
Cencor, Inc. v. Tolman, 868 P.2d 396 (Colo. 1994).
· cites it 2× “The respondents and nineteen other 1 former CenCor students filed a civil action against CenCor alleging claims of negligent failure to inform students of the education to be provided; negligence of a specialist; negligence *398 per se based on provisions of section…”
Gehl Grp. v. Koby, 838 F. Supp. 1409 (D. Colo. 1993).
· cites it 8× “Colo.Rev.Stat. § 18-5-301 (1986). 2 . Colo.”
People Ex Rel. Garner v. Garner, 33 P.3d 1239 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “6 refers to §§ 18-5-301 to 18-5-305, to delineate the district court magistrate's authority.”
Martinez v. Nash Finch Co., 886 F. Supp. 2d 1212 (D. Colo. 2012).
· cites it 2× “Claim two is also susceptible to a reading that it is asserting a statutory claim for false advertising under C.R.S. § 18-5-301 and - 303. . The Court notes that the Plaintiffs have recently moved for class certification (# 49).”
In Re the Marriage of Talbott, 43 P.3d 734 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “2001, under § 18-5-301(8)(e), C.R.S.2001, but such magistrates may conduct proceedings under the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act, § 14-10-101, et seq.”
In Re Marriage of Phelps & Robinson, 74 P.3d 506 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003).
“- See § 18-5-301(8)(e)(V.5), C.R.S.2002. The fact that the parties consented to proceeding before a magistrate is irrelevant, because the magistrate had authority to hear Robinson's request regardless of that consent.”
In Re the Marriage of Schmidt, 42 P.3d 81 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
“We note that, in this instance, even the Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure do not determine the time requirement because, in order for the district court to grant an enlargement of time for filing the transcript, there had to be, under C.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-5-301(1)(e) — 1 case
Gehl Grp. v. Koby, 838 F. Supp. 1409 (D. Colo. 1993).
“Colo.Rev.Stat. § 18-5-301 (1986). 2 . Colo.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-5-301(1)(f) — 1 case
People v. Blair, 579 P.2d 1133 (Colo. 1978).
“Section 18-5-301, C.R.S.1973 was not enacted until 1971.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-5-301(8)(b) — 1 case
People Ex Rel. Garner v. Garner, 33 P.3d 1239 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).
“6 refers to §§ 18-5-301 to 18-5-305, to delineate the district court magistrate's authority.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-5-301(8)(e) — 2 cases
In Re the Marriage of Talbott, 43 P.3d 734 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
“2001, under § 18-5-301(8)(e), C.R.S.2001, but such magistrates may conduct proceedings under the Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act, § 14-10-101, et seq.”
In Re Marriage of Phelps & Robinson, 74 P.3d 506 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003).
“- See § 18-5-301(8)(e)(V.5), C.R.S.2002. The fact that the parties consented to proceeding before a magistrate is irrelevant, because the magistrate had authority to hear Robinson's request regardless of that consent.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-5-301(l)(e) — 2 cases
Cencor, Inc. v. Tolman, 868 P.2d 396 (Colo. 1994).
“The respondents and nineteen other 1 former CenCor students filed a civil action against CenCor alleging claims of negligent failure to inform students of the education to be provided; negligence of a specialist; negligence *398 per se based on provisions of section…”
Gehl Grp. v. Koby, 838 F. Supp. 1409 (D. Colo. 1993).
“Colo.Rev.Stat. § 18-5-301 (1986). 2 . Colo.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-5-301(l)(f) — 1 case
People v. Blair, 579 P.2d 1133 (Colo. 1978).
“Section 18-5-301, C.R.S.1973 was not enacted until 1971.”
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.