Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 24
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-101 (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 "Colorado Governmental Immunity Act".

Source: L. 71: p. 1204, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 130-11-1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 342 cases (31 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: Bermel v. BlueRadios, Inc., 2019 CO 31 (Colo. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bermel v. BlueRadios, Inc., 2019 CO 31 (Colo. 2019). · cites it 2× “BlueRadios is correct that, in the context of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, §§ 24-10-101 to -120, C.R.S. (2018) (“CGIA”), we have explained that the determination of whether an action lies or could lie in tort requires considering the nature of the injury and the…”
City of Northglenn v. Grynberg, 846 P.2d 175 (Colo. 1993). · cites it 8× “2d 968 (1971), and the enactment of the Governmental Immunity Act, sections 24-10-101 to -120, 10A C.R.S. (1988 & 1992 Supp.”
State Ex Rel. Colorado State Claims Bd. of the Div. of Risk Mgmt. v. DeFoor, 824 P.2d 783 (Colo. 1992). · cites it 6× “Claimants appeal from a district court ruling that the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, §§ 24-10-101 to -120, 10A C.R.S. (1988) (the Act), does not violate claimants' rights to equal protection of laws, access to courts, or due process of laws.”
Woodsmall v. Reg'l Transp. Dist., 800 P.2d 63 (Colo. 1990). · cites it 4× “The plaintiff-appellants, Carol Woodsmall and Hughie Bennett, appeal the district court's dismissal of their personal injury claims against the Regional Transportation District (RTD) due to their failure to comply with the notice provisions of section 24-10-109 of the Colorado…”
Swieckowski Ex Rel. Swieckowski v. City of Fort Collins, 934 P.2d 1380 (Colo. 1997). · cites it 4× “Chief Justice VOLLACK dissenting: The majority holds that the City of Fort Collins (the City) is immune from suit under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (GIA), §§ 24-10-101 to -120, 10A C.R.S. (1988 & 1996 Supp.”
Fam. v. Pomeroy, 2021 COA 73 (Colo. Ct. App. 2021). “2010), wherein a division of this court considered whether the 42 Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA), §§ 24-10-101 to -120, C.R.S. 2020, barred the plaintiff’s claims for declaratory, injunctive, and restorative relief against municipal authorities that made alterations…”
Cikraji v. Snowberger, 410 P.3d 573 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “In pertinent part, the court concluded plaintiff failed to establish that he followed the notice provisions of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act (CGIA), section 24-10-101 to - 120, C.R.S.2014, and, therefore, the court was without jurisdiction to consider his claims.”
Elder v. Williams, 2020 CO 88 (Colo. 2020). · cites it 2× “department, institution, or school district of the state from compensatory damages for an intentional unfair or discriminatory employment practice under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, §§ 24-10-101 to -120, C.R.S. (2019). 3. Whether front pay damages for claims that…”
Stump v. Gates, 777 F. Supp. 808 (D. Colo. 1991). · cites it 4× “12(b)(6), the defendants have moved to dismiss each of those tort claims, arguing: (1) that the claims are time barred (Sueann Ocrant’s and Arapahoe County’s motions); (2) that the plaintiffs have not complied with the notice requirements of the Colorado Governmental Immunity…”
Castaldo v. Stone, 192 F. Supp. 2d 1124 (D. Colo. 2001). · cites it 3× “Colorado Governmental Immunity Act The Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Colo.Rev.Stat. § 24-10-101, et seq. (CGIA), covers “all the circumstances under which the state, any of its political subdivisions, or the public employees of such public entities may be liable in actions…”
State v. Moldovan, 842 P.2d 220 (Colo. 1992). · cites it 3× “The district court ruled that, although Molodovan’s claim was not barred by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, §§ 24-10-101 to -120, 10A C.R.S. (1988), the state owed no duty to Moldovan because, in its view, section 35-46-111 of the Colorado Fence Law, §§ 35-46-101 to -…”
Trimble v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 697 P.2d 716 (Colo. 1985). · cites it 2× “2d 968 (1971); but see § 24-10-101 to -118, 10 C.R.S. (1982 and 1984 Supp.”
Show all 342 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-101(1)(e) — 1 case
Ackerman v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 2015 COA 96 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
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.