Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 2
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-102 (2026)

Singular and plural

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The singular includes the plural, and the plural includes the singular.

Source: L. 73: R&RE, p. 1422, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 135-1-102.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Mountain Publ'g Co. LLP d/b/a Daily Camera v. Regents of the Univ. of Colorado, 2021 COA 26 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mountain Publ'g Co. LLP d/b/a Daily Camera v. Regents of the Univ. of Colorado, 2021 COA 26 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 5× “29 ¶ 57 The majority also relies on section 2-4-102, C.R.S. 2020, which says that “[t]he singular includes the plural, and the plural includes the singular.”
Riley v. People, 266 P.3d 1089 (Colo. 2011). · cites it 4× “§ 2-4-102, CRS. (2011); Jones, 675 P.2d at 14 n.”
People v. Jones, 675 P.2d 9 (Colo. 1984). · cites it 3× “The disjunctive reference to "Frisco or his associates” possibly could have led the jury to have incorrectly concluded that the defendant's use of force against Frisco was justified if only the Kukuses were involved in the assault against the defendant.”
Carlson v. Ferris, 85 P.3d 504 (Colo. 2003). · cites it 2× “For this interpretation, Ferris relies upon section 2-4-102, 1 C.R.S. (2003), which provides that the “singular includes the plural, and the plural includes the singular.”
Mountain Mobile Mix, Inc. v. Gifford, 660 P.2d 883 (Colo. 1983). · cites it 3× “Section 2-4-102, C.R.S.1973 (1980 Repl.Vol.”
Renck v. Motor Veh. Div., 636 P.2d 1294 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 3× “Section 2-4-102, C.R.S.1973 (1980 Repl.Vol.”
Kelln v. Colorado Dep't of Revenue, Motor Veh. Div., 719 P.2d 358 (Colo. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 3× “Section 2-4-102, C.R.S. (1980 Repl.Vol. IB).”
Spanish Peaks Mental Health Ctr. v. Huffaker, 928 P.2d 741 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “Essentially, petitioners claim that, because the singular generally includes the plural in statutory construction, see § 2-4-102, C.R.S. (1980 Repl.Vol. IB), the term “employer” in the statute should be read to mean “employers.”
Mauldin v. Panella, 17 P.3d 837 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “In statutory construction, use of the plural includes use of the singular, § 2-4-102, C.R.S8.2000, and common sense dictates a similar construction here.”
DeForrest v. City of Cherry Hills Vill., 990 P.2d 1139 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “Further, because the singular includes the plural, see § 2-4-102, C.R.S., the waiver of immunity applies to a public entity’s failure to repair traffic control signals on which conflicting directions are displayed.”
McCallum v. Dana's Housekeeping, 940 P.2d 1022 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “Section 2-4-102, C.R.S. (1980 Repl.Vol. IB); Renck v.”
Farmers Ins. Exch. v. Star, 952 P.2d 809 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “First, § 2-4-102, C.R.S. (1980 Repl.Vol. IB), addressing construction of singular and plural words in statutes, provides: “The singular includes the plural, and the plural includes the singular.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
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.