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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-202 (2026)

Statutes presumed prospective

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

A statute is presumed to be prospective in its operation. Source: L. 73: R&RE, p. 1424, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 135-1-202.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 89 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: People v. Stellabotte, 2018 CO 66 (Colo. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People v. Stellabotte, 2018 CO 66 (Colo. 2018). · cites it 31× “¶44 Significantly, however, the Thomas majority did not find this express provision in section 510(1)(f), a statute which, by its own terms merely provided a procedural vehicle for postconviction relief, to be sufficient in itself to overcome the more express presumptions…”
People v. Boyd, 2015 COA 109 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 40× “Sections 2-4-202 and 2-4-303 ¶27       The dissent relies in part on two statutes addressing the retroactive effect of amendatory legislation: section 2-4-202, C.R.S. 2014 (“A statute is presumed to be prospective in its operation.”
People v. Stellabotte, 2016 COA 106 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 11× “4 Further, because the three cases dealt with amendatory statutes that applied only to offenses committed on or after the effective date, we do not view Riley, McCoy, and Macias as inconsistent with Russell and Boyd.”
Cont'l Title Co. v. Dist. Court in & for the City & Cnty. of Denver, 645 P.2d 1310 (Colo. 1982). · cites it 12× “XV, § 12 3 and section 2-4-202, C.R.S.1973. 4 We disagree with the contentions of Continental and the Division and hold that district court jurisdiction over Wilhelm’s complaint is proper.”
Specialty Restaurants Corp. v. Nelson, 231 P.3d 393 (Colo. 2010). · cites it 5× “§ 2-4-202, C.R.S. (2009); Ficarra, 849 P.”
. People v. Trujillo, 2018 COA 12 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “” § 2-4-202, C.R.S. 2017. However, if a statute is silent as to whether it applies only prospectively, a defendant may seek retroactive application if he or she benefits from a significant change in the law.”
In Re Larson, 260 B.R. 174 (Bankr.D. Colo. 2001). · cites it 8× “II, § 2 and Colo.Rev.Stat. § 2-4-202, (b) constitute an unconstitutional “taking” of the collateral to the loans held by Farmers Bank and/or the FSA under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Colorado, and/or (c) violate the…”
Ficarra v. Dep't of Regulatory Agencies, Div. of Ins., 849 P.2d 6 (Colo. 1993). · cites it 6× “2d 963, 964 (1980) (“Section 2-4-202, C.R.S.1973, which is a restatement of the common law, provides that a statute is presumed to be prospective in its operation.”
v. Ctr. for Excellence, 2021 COA 117 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “§ 2-4-202, C.R.S. 2020; In re Estate of DeWitt, 54 P.”
City of Colorado Springs v. Powell, 156 P.3d 461 (Colo. 2007). · cites it 4× “§ 2-4-202, C.R.S. (2006); In re Estate of DeWitt, 54 P.”
People v. Talley, 934 P.2d 859 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 3× “Section 2-4-202, C.R.S. (1980 Repl.Vol. IB); Riley v.”
Giguere v. SJS Fam. Enter., Ltd., 155 P.3d 462 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “2002); see also § 2-4-202, C.R.S.2005 (a statute is presumed to be prospective in its operation).”
Show all 89 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.