Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-5-103 (2026)

Preparation of Colorado Revised Statutes

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

(1) In compiling, editing, arranging, and preparing the statutes, the revisor, under the supervision and direction of the committee, shall:

(a) Adopt a uniform system of punctuation, capitalization, and wording;

(b) Eliminate all obsolete and redundant wording of laws;

(c) Correct obvious errors and inconsistencies;

(d) Correct inaccurate references to the titles of officers, departments, or other agencies of the state and to other statutes, and make such other name changes as are necessary to be consistent with the law currently in effect;

(e) Eliminate any duplications in law and any laws repealed directly or by implication; and

(f) Clarify existing laws, modernize terminology, and make such other nonsubstantive changes as the committee considers proper.

(2) The revisor shall make no change in the substance of any statute but may make such changes in arrangement and terminology as will, in the judgment of the committee, improve the style and clarity of the laws, yet preserve the intent, effect, and meaning of each statutory provision.

(3) The revisor, with the approval of the committee, may employ such additional professional and clerical staff, within limits of appropriations, as may be necessary for the preparation and publication of the statutes under this article. In addition, the committee may obtain, by contract, such technical and professional assistance as it deems advisable for the efficient and accurate preparation and publication of such statutes, including but not limited to preparation of annotations and indices.

Source: L. 70: p. 365, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 135-6-3. L. 96: (3) amended, p. 1345, § 2, effective June 1.

Cross references: For editorial work in the office of revisor of statutes, see § 2-3-703; for legislative construction not based on editorial matters, see § 2-5-113 (4).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: City of Ouray v. Olin, 761 P.2d 784 (Colo. 1988).
City of Ouray v. Olin, 761 P.2d 784 (Colo. 1988). · cites it 3× “Section 2-5-103(2), IB C.R.S. (1980), specifies that: (2) The revisor shall make no change in the substance of any statute but may make such changes in arrangement and terminology as will, in the judgment of the committee, improve the style and clarity of the laws, yet preserve…”
People v. Washington, 969 P.2d 788 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 5× “Section 2-5-103, C.R.S.1998. • In compiling the Colorado Revised Statutes, the revisor of statutes is required to include references to the Session Laws to permit a researcher to locate the source legislation.”
People v. North Avenue Furniture & Appliance, Inc., 645 P.2d 1291 (Colo. 1982). · cites it 3× “In the ease of the compilation and publication of the 1973 Colorado Revised Statutes, section 2-5-103(2), C.R.S. 1973 (1980 Repl.”
Passamano v. Travelers Indem. Co., 882 P.2d 1312 (Colo. 1994). · cites it 2× “§ 2-5-103(2), 1B C.R.S. (1980). [10] This language is now codified at § 10-4-609, 4A C.”
Van Gerpen v. Peterson, 620 P.2d 714 (Colo. 1980). · cites it 3× “…improve the style and clarity of the laws, yet preserve the intent, effect, and meaning of each statutory provision.” Section 2-5-103, C.R.S. 1973.”
Colorado Dep't of Revenue v. Woodmen of the World, 919 P.2d 806 (Colo. 1996). “” § 2-5-103(l)(b), IB C.R.S. (1980). Presumably this was the basis upon which the term “and every” was dropped from the statute.”
Ledden v. State, 686 N.W.2d 873 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004). “2d at 789 (citing § 2-5-103, C.R.S.1998). Thus the court held that the policy underlying Colo.”
Olin v. City of Ouray, 744 P.2d 761 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3× “Section 2-5-103, C.R.S. (1980 Repl. Yol. IB) authorizes the revisor to correct obvious errors and inconsistencies in the laws in order to preserve the intent, effect, and meaning of each statutory provision, but it precludes him from making any change in the substance of a…”
Peo v. Patterson (Colo. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “te all obsolete and redundant wording of laws”; “[c]orrect obvious errors and inconsistencies”; “[c]orrect inaccurate 3 references to the titles of officers, departments, or other agencies of the state and to other statutes, and make such other name changes as are necessary to…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-5-103(1)(a) — 1 case
Peo v. Patterson (Colo. Ct. App. 2025). “te all obsolete and redundant wording of laws”; “[c]orrect obvious errors and inconsistencies”; “[c]orrect inaccurate 3 references to the titles of officers, departments, or other agencies of the state and to other statutes, and make such other name changes as are necessary to…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-5-103(2) — 4 cases
City of Ouray v. Olin, 761 P.2d 784 (Colo. 1988). “Section 2-5-103(2), IB C.R.S. (1980), specifies that: (2) The revisor shall make no change in the substance of any statute but may make such changes in arrangement and terminology as will, in the judgment of the committee, improve the style and clarity of the laws, yet preserve…”
People v. North Avenue Furniture & Appliance, Inc., 645 P.2d 1291 (Colo. 1982). “In the ease of the compilation and publication of the 1973 Colorado Revised Statutes, section 2-5-103(2), C.R.S. 1973 (1980 Repl.”
Passamano v. Travelers Indem. Co., 882 P.2d 1312 (Colo. 1994). “§ 2-5-103(2), 1B C.R.S. (1980). [10] This language is now codified at § 10-4-609, 4A C.”
Peo v. Patterson (Colo. Ct. App. 2025). “te all obsolete and redundant wording of laws”; “[c]orrect obvious errors and inconsistencies”; “[c]orrect inaccurate 3 references to the titles of officers, departments, or other agencies of the state and to other statutes, and make such other name changes as are necessary to…”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 2-5-103(l)(b) — 1 case
Colorado Dep't of Revenue v. Woodmen of the World, 919 P.2d 806 (Colo. 1996). “” § 2-5-103(l)(b), IB C.R.S. (1980). Presumably this was the basis upon which the term “and every” was dropped from the 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.