Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 22
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 22-20-101 (2026)

Short title

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

This article shall be known and may be cited as the "Exceptional Children's Educational Act".

Source: L. 73: R&RE, p. 1258, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 123-22-1. L. 79: Entire section amended, p. 775, § 1, effective July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1986–2019 · leading case: McQueen Ex Rel. McQueen v. Colorado Springs Sch. Dist. No. 11, 419 F. Supp. 2d 1303 (D. Colo. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McQueen Ex Rel. McQueen v. Colorado Springs Sch. Dist. No. 11, 419 F. Supp. 2d 1303 (D. Colo. 2006). · cites it 2× “At the time of the events relevant to this case, Joshua was a student at Midland Elementary School in the District and was receiving special education services under both the IDEA and the Colorado Exceptional Children’s Act, C.R.S. §§ 22-20-101 et seq. (2001), (the “CECA”).”
Wade v. Boulder Valley Sch. Dist. (D. Colo. 2019). · cites it 2× “had failed to establish any violation of the IDEA or ECEA, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 22-20-101 et seq.9 Specifically, the ALJ concluded that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate J.”
Wade v. Boulder Valley Sch. Dist. (D. Colo. 2019). · cites it 2× “had failed to establish any violation of the IDEA or ECEA, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 22-20-101 et seq.9 Specifically, the ALJ concluded that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate J.”
A.C.B. Ex Rel. Pearlman v. Denver Dep't of Soc. Servs., 725 P.2d 94 (Colo. Ct. App. 1986). “At its conclusion, the department moved that the motion be denied on the basis that the department was responsible only for ordinary education and that, under the Exceptional Children’s Educational Act, § 22-20-101, et seq., C.R.S. (1985 Cum.Supp.”
People ex rel. M.V. v. Adams Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 50, 732 P.2d 1222 (Colo. Ct. App. 1986). “Timeliness of Request for Review On appeal, social services contends that the court erred in reversing the previous order by the juvenile commissioner imposing liability for excess costs on the district because the district did not timely file for review within the time limits…”
People ex rel. J.L.L., 742 P.2d 349 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987). “In this action concerning placement of a student in special educational facilities, the Adams County Department of Social Services (Social Services) appeals the orders of the trial court requiring Social Services to exhaust its administrative remedies under the Exceptional…”
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.