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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-4-211 (2026)

Common law of England

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

The common law of England so far as the same is applicable and of a general nature, and all acts and statutes of the British parliament, made in aid of or to supply the defects of the common law prior to the fourth year of James the First, excepting the second section of the sixth chapter of forty-third Elizabeth, the eighth chapter of thirteenth Elizabeth, and the ninth chapter of thirty-seventh Henry the Eighth, and which are of a general nature, and not local to that kingdom, shall be the rule of decision, and shall be considered as of full force until repealed by legislative authority.

Source: L. 73: R&RE, p. 1425, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 135-1-211.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2021 · leading case: Vigil v. Franklin, 103 P.3d 322 (Colo. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Vigil v. Franklin, 103 P.3d 322 (Colo. 2004). · cites it 6× “2003); see also § 2-4-211, C.R.S. (2004) (where the General Assembly expressly retained authority to repeal common law rules).”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 396 P.3d 651 (Colo. 2017). · cites it 2× “We disagree with the division’s premises that an agent can waive UM/UIM coverage for another only with express authority and that principles of implied and apparent authority do not apply.”
People v. Oram, 217 P.3d 883 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “We agree with Oram in part, but conclude that the bonding agent's privilege in Colorado is narrower in scope than he asserts.”
People Ex Rel. Salazar v. Davidson, 79 P.3d 1221 (Colo. 2003). · cites it 5× “Although Colorado has incorporated the common law of 1607, we find its transposition to Colorado, where executive power is intentionally diffused among several officers, is necessarily approximate.”
Farmers Grp., Inc. v. Williams, 805 P.2d 419 (Colo. 1991). · cites it 4× “The question is not whether the General Assembly authorized a private right of action for a breach of duty it statutorily created, but whether the legislature meant to abrogate an existing common-law remedy when it enacted section 10-4-708(1).”
Lobato v. State, 218 P.3d 358 (Colo. 2009). · cites it 2× “§ 2-4-211, C.R.S. (2009). The common law of England, as it existed March 24, 1607, was adopted as the law of Colorado unless repealed or abrogated by the General Assembly.”
Centric-Jones Co. v. Hufnagel, 848 P.2d 942 (Colo. 1993). · cites it 4× “1988) (relying on section 2-4-211, 1B C.R.S. (1980)). Since section 13-17-202 does not contain a provision repealing the common law of contracts, I find the common law principles useful in construing the statute in the present case.”
Garhart Ex Rel. Tinsman v. Columbia/HealthOne, L.L.C., 95 P.3d 571 (Colo. 2004). · cites it 2× “The HCAA simply imposes a cap on an award; the trial court still retains its authority to reduce by remittitur an award it determines to be excessive in light of the evidence before the jury. The HCAA cap applies equally to all medical malpractice personal injury plaintiffs,…”
People v. Davis, 794 P.2d 159 (Colo. 1990). · cites it 2× “There are no other statutory provisions applicable. In the absence of relevant statutory provisions, this court is guided by the common law of the state as pronounced by the previous decisions of this court.”
Francis RUDNICKI & Pamela Rudnicki, as parents, guardians & next friends of Alexander Rudnicki, a minor child v. Peter BIANCO, D.O., 501 P.3d 776 (Colo. 2021). · cites it 6× “¶ 38 , the legislature has determined that the common law generally prevails, § 2-4-211, C.R.S. ( 2021 ) , thus compelling this court to construe alterations strictly and "only recognize changes that the General Assembly has expressly mandated or necessarily implied by…”
Vaughan v. McMinn, 945 P.2d 404 (Colo. 1997). · cites it 2× “The General Assembly possesses the authority to abrogate common law remedies, see § 2-4-211, 1 C.R.S. (1997); however, "we will not lightly infer a legislative abrogation of that right absent a clear expression of intent.”
Clancy Sys. Int'l, Inc. v. Salazar, 177 P.3d 1235 (Colo. 2008). · cites it 2× “Although it has chosen to give the common law of England full force until repealed by legislative authority, see § 2-4-211, C.R.S. (2007), it may therefore selectively modify or abrogate portions of that law, at its choice.”
Show all 30 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.