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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 22-32-101 (2026)

Corporate status of school districts

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

Each regularly organized school district heretofore or hereafter formed is declared to be a body corporate with perpetual existence, and in its name it may hold property for any purpose authorized by law, sue and be sued, and be a party to contracts for any purpose authorized by law.

Source: L. 64: p. 573, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 123-30-1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1976–2015 · leading case: Lujan v. Colorado State Bd. of Educ., 649 P.2d 1005 (Colo. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lujan v. Colorado State Bd. of Educ., 649 P.2d 1005 (Colo. 1982). · cites it 4× “We hold that Colorado's present school financing system does not violate the "thorough and uniform" mandate.”
Littleton Educ. Ass'n v. Arapahoe Cnty. Sch. Dist., No. 6, 553 P.2d 793 (Colo. 1976). · cites it 3× “Section 22-32-101, C.R.S. 1973. Section 22-32- *416 109(l)(f), C.”
Dorsey v. Pueblo Sch. Dist. 60, 140 F. Supp. 3d 1102 (D. Colo. 2015). · cites it 2× “” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 22-32-101 ; see also Roe v.”
Brown v. Jefferson Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. R-1, 297 P.3d 976 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “But where, as here, the dispute is between a public employee and a legislatively created entity, § 22-32-101, C.R.S.2011, the doctrine of exhaustion of contractual remedies does not apply.”
Feeney v. Jefferson Cnty. Health Servs. Ass'n, 949 P.2d 103 (Colo. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “IX, § 12 (regents of the University of Colorado); § 22-32-101, C.R.S. (1995 Repl. Vol. 9) (school districts); § 23-30-102, C.”
James v. Bd. of Commissioners of Denver Urban Renewal Auth., 611 P.2d 976 (Colo. 1980). · cites it 2× “Nowhere in the statute is an urban renewal authority described as a “state agency or authority.” The mere enactment of legislation which permits the formation of a commission, board, agency, or authority does not per se make that body a state agency or authority.”
James v. Bd. of Commissioners, 611 P.2d 976 (Colo. 1980). · cites it 2× “Nowhere in the statute is an urban renewal authority described as a “state agency or authority.” The mere enactment of legislation which permits the formation of a commission, board, agency, or authority does not per se make that body a state agency or authority.”
James v. Bd. of Commissioners, 611 P.2d 976 (Colo. 1980). · cites it 2× “Nowhere in the statute is an urban renewal authority described as a “state agency or authority.” The mere enactment of legislation which permits the formation of a commission, board, agency, or authority does not per se make that body a state agency or authority.”
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.