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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-208 (2026)

Continuation of prior law

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

A statute which is reenacted, revised, or amended is intended to be a continuation of the prior statute and not a new enactment, insofar as it is the same as the prior statute.

Source: L. 73: R&RE, p. 1424, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 135-1-208.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 63 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: A.S. v. People, 312 P.3d 168 (Colo. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
A.S. v. People, 312 P.3d 168 (Colo. 2013). · cites it 4× “2004); see also § 2-4-208, C.R.S. (2013) (listing aids in construction of ambiguous statutes).”
Carruthers v. Carrier Access Corp., 251 P.3d 1199 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “3d at 1193 ; see § 2-4-208, C.R.98.2010. A. Plain Language We perceive no material ambiguity in section 8-4-110(1).”
People v. Rowe, 318 P.3d 57 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “See § 2-4-208, C.R.S.2011; Bostelman, 162 P.3d at 690 .”
People v. Trusty, 53 P.3d 668 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “If, after the court has employed the various aids to statutory construction, it is still unable to discern controlling legislative intent, the rule of lenity requires that the statute be construed favorably to the accused. People v.”
Tuscany, LLC v. W. States Excavating Pipe & Boring, LLC, 128 P.3d 274 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “1994); see also § 2-4-208, C.R.S.2004. We then construe the statute to serve the legislative purpose underlying its enactment.”
Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Equalization v. Gerganoff, 241 P.3d 932 (Colo. 2010). · cites it 2× “§ 2-4-208, C.R.S. (2010). *936 Additionally, the heading of a statute, although not dispositive of legislative intent, can aid in determining legislative intent.”
Anderson v. Longmont Toyota, Inc., 102 P.3d 323 (Colo. 2004). · cites it 2× “§ 2-4-208(1), C.R.S. (2004); Bymer, 955 P.”
Young v. Brighton Sch. Dist. 27J, 325 P.3d 571 (Colo. 2014). · cites it 2× “2007); see also § 2-4-208(1), C.R.S. (2013) (noting that when statutory ambiguity exists, a reviewing court may consider, among other things, the object sought to be attained, the consequences of a particular construction, and the legislative declaration).”
Larrieu v. Best Buy Stores, L.P., 303 P.3d 558 (Colo. 2013). · cites it 2× “; see also § 2-4-208, C.R.S. (2012) 1 We avoid interpretations that would produce absurd results.”
Lewis v. Taylor, 2016 CO 48 (Colo. 2016). “§ 2-4-208(1), C.R.8. (2015) 128 CUFTA's legislative history is silent as to the General Assembly's intent in enacting section 38-8-110(1)'s extinguishment provision.”
Trujillo v. Colorado Div. of Ins., 320 P.3d 1208 (Colo. 2014). “§ 2-4-208(1); Lobato, 105 P.3d at 228-24 .”
People v. Tixier, 207 P.3d 844 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “§ 2-4-208, C.R.S.2008; Colo. Dep't of Labor & Employment v.”
Show all 63 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-208(1) — 9 cases
People v. Trusty, 53 P.3d 668 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001). “If, after the court has employed the various aids to statutory construction, it is still unable to discern controlling legislative intent, the rule of lenity requires that the statute be construed favorably to the accused. People v.”
Anderson v. Longmont Toyota, Inc., 102 P.3d 323 (Colo. 2004). “§ 2-4-208(1), C.R.S. (2004); Bymer, 955 P.”
Young v. Brighton Sch. Dist. 27J, 325 P.3d 571 (Colo. 2014). “2007); see also § 2-4-208(1), C.R.S. (2013) (noting that when statutory ambiguity exists, a reviewing court may consider, among other things, the object sought to be attained, the consequences of a particular construction, and the legislative declaration).”
Lewis v. Taylor, 2016 CO 48 (Colo. 2016). “§ 2-4-208(1), C.R.8. (2015) 128 CUFTA's legislative history is silent as to the General Assembly's intent in enacting section 38-8-110(1)'s extinguishment provision.”
Trujillo v. Colorado Div. of Ins., 320 P.3d 1208 (Colo. 2014). “§ 2-4-208(1); Lobato, 105 P.3d at 228-24 .”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-208(1)(a) — 6 cases
People v. Carey, 198 P.3d 1223 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
Springer v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 13 P.3d 794 (Colo. 2000).
Weisbart v. Agri Tech, Inc., 22 P.3d 954 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).
People v. Sorrendino, 37 P.3d 501 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).
Moran v. Stand. Ins. Co., 187 P.3d 1162 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-208(1)(b) — 1 case
Carruthers v. Carrier Access Corp., 251 P.3d 1199 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). “3d at 1193 ; see § 2-4-208, C.R.98.2010. A. Plain Language We perceive no material ambiguity in section 8-4-110(1).”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-208(1)(c) — 7 cases
Watson v. Pub. Serv. Co. of Colorado, 207 P.3d 860 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
McLaughlin v. Oxley, 297 P.3d 1007 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
People v. Trujillo, 251 P.3d 477 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).
Land Owners United, LLC v. Waters, 293 P.3d 86 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
Double RL Co. v. Telluray Ranch Props., 54 P.3d 908 (Colo. 2002).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-208(1)(d) — 3 cases
Carruthers v. Carrier Access Corp., 251 P.3d 1199 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010). “3d at 1193 ; see § 2-4-208, C.R.98.2010. A. Plain Language We perceive no material ambiguity in section 8-4-110(1).”
People v. Rockwell, 104 P.3d 900 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).
Am. Numismatic Ass'n v. Cipoletti, 254 P.3d 1169 (Colo. Ct. App. 2011).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-208(1)(e) — 4 cases
Stamp v. Vail Corp., 172 P.3d 437 (Colo. 2007).
Minh Le v. Colorado Dep't of Revenue, 198 P.3d 1247 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
In Re Marriage of White & Martin, 240 P.3d 534 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).
Stresscon Corp. v. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am., 373 P.3d 615 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-208(l)(e) — 1 case
Jones v. Cox, 828 P.2d 218 (Colo. 1992).
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.