The repeal, revision,
amendment, or consolidation of any statute or part of a statute or section or part of a section of
any statute shall not have the effect to release, extinguish, alter, modify, or change in whole or in
part any penalty, forfeiture, or liability, either civil or criminal, which shall have been incurred
under such statute, unless the repealing, revising, amending, or consolidating act so expressly
provides, and such statute or part of a statute or section or part of a section of a statute so
repealed, amended, or revised shall be treated and held as still remaining in force for the purpose
of sustaining any and all proper actions, suits, proceedings, and prosecutions, criminal as well as
civil, for the enforcement of such penalty, forfeiture, or liability, as well as for the purpose of
sustaining any judgment, decree, or order which can or may be rendered, entered, or made in
such actions, suits, proceedings, or prosecutions imposing, inflicting, or declaring such penalty,
forfeiture, or liability.
Source: L. 73: R&RE, p. 1425, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 135-1-303.
PART 4
DEFINITIONS
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
24
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2021 · leading case:
People v. Boyd, 2015 COA 109 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
People v. Boyd, 2015 COA 109 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 46× “â), and section 2-4-303, C.R.S. 2014 (âThe repeal .”
. People v. Trujillo, 2018 COA 12 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 19× “¶ 78 The partial dissent also invokes section 2-4-303, C.R.S. 2017, in support of its conclusion.”
Lucero v. People, 272 P.3d 1063 (Colo. 2012).
· cites it 3× “§ 2-4-303, C.R.S. (2011); People v. McCoy, 764 P.”
Noe v. Dolan, 589 P.2d 483 (Colo. 1979).
· cites it 6× “The repeal, revision, amendment, or consolidation of any statute or part of a statute or section or part of a section of any statute shall not have the effect to release, extinguish, alter, modify, or change in whole or in part any penalty, forfeiture, or liability, either civil…”
Adams Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Dist. Court, 611 P.2d 963 (Colo. 1980).
· cites it 12× “The respondent cites section 2-4-303, C.R.S. 1973 for the proposition that supplemental amendments to a statute may not be applied retroactively to deprive a claimant of a preexisting cause of action.”
People v. Stellabotte, 2016 COA 106 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “See § 2-4-303, C.R.S. 2015 (“The repeal, revision, amendment, or consolidation of any statute .”
Claim of Stark v. Zimmerman, 638 P.2d 843 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 8× “See § 2-4-303, C.R.S.1973; cf. Eight Thousand West Corp.”
Ortivez v. Davis, 902 P.2d 905 (Colo. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 6× “Among them is § 2-4-303, C.R.S. (1980 Repl. Vol. IB), which provides: The repeal, revision, amendment, or consolidation of any statute or part of a statute or section or part of a section of any statute shall not have the effect to release, extinguish, alter, modify, or change…”
People v. Harris, 633 P.2d 1095 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 3× “” Section 2-4-303, C.R.S. 1973 (1980 Repl.Vol.”
Berkeley Metro. Dist. v. Poland, 705 P.2d 1004 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 4× “” (emphasis added) The general savings clause set forth in § 2-4-303, C.R.S. (1980 Repl.Vol. IB) provides in pertinent part that: “The repeal .”
People v. Russell, 396 P.3d 71 (Colo. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “”). ¶ 12 Here, the language of Amendment 64 does not clearly express an intent for retroactive application of section 16(3)(a).”
Hickman v. Catholic Health Initiatives, 328 P.3d 266 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 3× “In its reply brief, defendant argues for the first time that section 2-4-303, C.R.S 2012, precludes retroactive application of the current statute.”
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.