(1) If a statute is ambiguous, the court, in determining the intention of the general assembly, may consider among other matters:
(a) The object sought to be attained;
(b) The circumstances under which the statute was enacted;
(c) The legislative history, if any;
(d) The common law or former statutory provisions, including laws upon the same or similar subjects;
(e) The consequences of a particular construction;
(f) The administrative construction of the statute;
(g) The legislative declaration or purpose.
Source: L. 73: R&RE, p. 1424, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 135-1-203.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
266
cases (
43 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case:
v. Dominguez, 2021 COA 76.
v. Dominguez, 2021 COA 76.
· cites it 4× “§ 2-4-203, C.R.S. 2020; Frazier v. People, 90 P.”
Robbins v. People, 107 P.3d 384 (Colo. 2005).
· cites it 4× “See § 2-4-203, C.R.S. (2004); Schubert v. People, 698 P.”
In Re the Marriage of Ikeler, 161 P.3d 663 (Colo. 2007).
· cites it 4× “3d at 1015 ; § 2-4-203, C.R.S. (2006). Our task is to choose a construction that gives effect to the legislature's intent and that serves the purpose of the overall statutory scheme.”
v. Spalding Rehab., 2019 COA 93.
· cites it 2× “See § 2-4-203, C.R.S. 2018; Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v.”
Hurtado v. Brady, 165 P.3d 871 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “3d at 661 ; see § 2-4-203, C.R.S.2006. A statute is ambiguous if it is susceptible of more than one interpretation.”
Alamosa-La Jara Water Users Prot. Ass'n v. Gould, 674 P.2d 914 (Colo. 1983).
· cites it 13× “The water court supported its reading of the compact by reference to the compact’s legislative history as well as the other factors set forth in section 2-4-203, C.R.S. (1980 Repl.Vol. IB).”
Simon v. Coppola, 876 P.2d 10 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “When the words are susceptible of more than one meaning or leave their scope unclear, we derive the public policy being conveyed and its scope in part from the statute's historical context, see § 2-4-203, C.R.S. (1980 Repl. Vol. 1B), and in part from the assumption that the…”
State v. Nieto, 993 P.2d 493 (Colo. 2000).
· cites it 4× “See § 2-4-203, 1 C.R.S. (1999); see, e.g., Colby, 928 P.”
Gorman v. Tucker by & Through Edwards, 961 P.2d 1126 (Colo. 1998).
· cites it 8× “See § 2-4-203(1)(a)-(g), 1 C.R.S. (1997). A statute must be read and considered as a whole and should be construed to give consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect to all of its parts.”
People v. Opana, 2017 CO 56, 395 P.3d 757.
· cites it 4× “However, to the extent that the language of a statute is susceptible of more than one reasonable interpretation, and is therefore considered ambiguous, a substantial body of interpretive aids, either provided by the legislature to explain its own drafting conventions and…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-203(1): 34 cases
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-203(1)(a): 24 cases
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-203(1)(b): 3 cases
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-203(1)(c): 24 cases
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-203(1)(d): 7 cases
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-203(1)(e): 23 cases
Gorman v. Tucker by & Through Edwards, 961 P.2d 1126 (Colo. 1998).
“See § 2-4-203(1)(a)-(g), 1 C.R.S. (1997). A statute must be read and considered as a whole and should be construed to give consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect to all of its parts.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-203(1)(f): 3 cases
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-203(1)(g): 5 cases
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-203(8): 1 case
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-203(a): 2 cases
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-203(b): 1 case
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-203(c): 2 cases
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-203(d): 2 cases
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-203(e): 1 case
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-203(g): 2 cases
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-203(l)(a): 17 cases
State v. Nieto, 993 P.2d 493 (Colo. 2000).
“See § 2-4-203, 1 C.R.S. (1999); see, e.g., Colby, 928 P.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-203(l)(b): 1 case
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-203(l)(c): 8 cases
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-203(l)(d): 5 cases
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-203(l)(e): 9 cases
Gorman v. Tucker by & Through Edwards, 961 P.2d 1126 (Colo. 1998).
“See § 2-4-203(1)(a)-(g), 1 C.R.S. (1997). A statute must be read and considered as a whole and should be construed to give consistent, harmonious, and sensible effect to all of its parts.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-203(l)(f): 4 cases
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-203(l)(g): 2 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.