Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 22-63-101 (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 "Teacher Employment, Compensation, and Dismissal Act of 1990".

Source: L. 90: Entire article R&RE, p. 1117, § 1, effective July 1.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 22-63-101 as it existed prior to 1990.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 76 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2023 · leading case: Johnson v. Sch. Dist. No. 1 in the City & Cnty. of Denver, 2018 CO 17 (Colo. 2018).
Johnson v. Sch. Dist. No. 1 in the City & Cnty. of Denver, 2018 CO 17 (Colo. 2018). · cites it 14× “1, §§ 22-63-101 to -403, 1990 Colo. Sess. Laws 1117 .”
Adams Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 50 v. Heimer, 919 P.2d 786 (Colo. 1996). · cites it 8× “1994), in which the court of appeals reversed the decision of the Board of Education of the Adams County-Westminster School District (the Board) to dismiss Jan Heimer from her position as a non-probationary teacher pursuant to the Teacher Employment, Compensation, and Dismissal…”
Sch. Dist. No. 1 in the City & Cnty. of Denver v. Masters, 2018 CO 18 (Colo. 2018). · cites it 3× “§ 22-63-114(1), C.R.S. (1988). The receiving school could not refuse to accept a transferred teacher.”
Widder v. Durango Sch. Dist. No. 9-R, 85 P.3d 518 (Colo. 2004). · cites it 2× “Because it is the seminal legislation that addresses the employment of teachers in public schools, we look to the Teacher Employment, Compensation, and Dismissal Act of 1990, § 22-63-101, et seq., 7A C.R.S. (2003) (the TECDA), for any guidance it can provide by way of analogy.”
Blair v. Lovett, 582 P.2d 668 (Colo. 1978). · cites it 2× “This case arises under the Teacher Employment, Dismissal, and Tenure Act of 1967, section 22-63-101, et seq., C.R.S. 1973. Under that act, a tenured teacher may be dismissed only for “physical or mental disability, incompetency, neglect of duty, immorality, conviction of a…”
Martin v. Montezuma-Cortez Sch. Dist. Re-1, 841 P.2d 237 (Colo. 1992). · cites it 2× “Written contracts between teachers and school districts were required by section 22-63-107 of the Teacher Employment, Dismissal, and Tenure Act of 1967, sections 22-63-101 — XX-XX-XXX, 9 C.R.S. (1973) (as amended) (Teacher Tenure Act).”
Snyder v. Jefferson Cnty. Sch. Dist. R-1, 842 P.2d 624 (Colo. 1992). · cites it 4× “(1988), of the Teacher Employment, Dismissal, and Tenure Act of 1967, §§ 22-63-101 to -118, 9 C.R.S. (1988) (the 1967 Act).”
Blaine v. Moffat Cnty. Sch. Dist. Re No. 1, 748 P.2d 1280 (Colo. 1988). · cites it 2× “Since the legal standards for adjudicating charges of teacher misconduct under the Teacher Employment, Dismissal and Tenure Act of 1967 (Teacher Tenure Act), §§ 22-63-101 to -118, 9 C.R.S. (1973 and 1987 Supp.”
Bd. of Educ. of Jefferson Co. v. Wilder, 960 P.2d 695 (Colo. 1998). · cites it 2× “Contrary to the findings of the hearing officer, the Board found that Wilder did not show the film 1900 "in accordance with the standards and procedures established by school district policy and regulation.”
Julesburg Sch. Dist. No. Re-1, Etc. v. Ebke, 562 P.2d 419 (Colo. 1977). · cites it 2× “The school district, pursuant to the Teacher Employment, Dismissal, and Tenure Act, section 22-63-101 et seq., C.R.S. 1973, had adopted a salary schedule which also provided for longevity increments.”
Fremont Re-1 Sch. Dist. v. Jacobs, 737 P.2d 816 (Colo. 1987). · cites it 2× “See Teacher Employment, Dismissal, and Tenure Act of 1967, § 22-63-101 et seq., 9 C.R.S. (1973 & 1986 Supp.”
Reeves-Toney v. Sch. Dist. No. 1 in City & Cnty. of Denver, 2019 CO 40 (Colo. 2019). “5) of the Teacher Employment, Compensation, and Dismissal Act of 1990 (TECDA), §§ 22-63-101 to - 403, C.R.S. (2018). Reeves-Toney alleges that these provisions violate the local control clause of article IX, section 15 of the Colorado Constitution by delegating local school…”
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.