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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-108 (2026)

Sovereign immunity a bar

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

Except as provided in sections 24-10-104 to 24- 10-106 and 24-10-106.3, sovereign immunity shall be a bar to any action against a public entity for injury which lies in tort or could lie in tort regardless of whether that may be the type of action or the form of relief chosen by a claimant. If a public entity raises the issue of sovereign immunity prior to or after the commencement of discovery, the court shall suspend discovery, except any discovery necessary to decide the issue of sovereign immunity and shall decide such issue on motion. The court's decision on such motion shall be a final judgment and shall be subject to interlocutory appeal.

Source: L. 71: p. 1207, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 130-11-8. L. 86: Entire section amended, p. 877, § 8, effective July 1. L. 92: Entire section amended, p. 1117, § 3, effective July 1. L. 2015: Entire section amended, (SB 15-213), ch. 266, p. 1039, § 4, effective June 3.

Cross references: For the legislative declaration in SB 15-213, see section 1 of chapter 266, Session Laws of Colorado 2015.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 188 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Finnie v. Jefferson Cnty. Sch. Dist. R-1, 79 P.3d 1253 (Colo. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Finnie v. Jefferson Cnty. Sch. Dist. R-1, 79 P.3d 1253 (Colo. 2003). · cites it 33× “We first examine the text of section 24-10-108, 7B C.R.S. (2003), of the GIA and determine that it requires trial courts to resolve all issues of immunity before trial.”
Fogg v. MacAluso, 892 P.2d 271 (Colo. 1995). · cites it 44× “It reasoned that the usual rules regarding summary judgment applied to a pre-trial claim of immunity brought under section 24-10-108, 10A C.R.S. (1988), and disputed issues of material fact should have been reserved for trial.”
Medina v. State, 35 P.3d 443 (Colo. 2001). · cites it 13× “The state, arguing that it is immune from liability under the CGIA, brought a motion to dismiss these claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to C.”
Walton v. State, 968 P.2d 636 (Colo. 1998). · cites it 15× “The State then took an interlocutory appeal under CGIA section 24-10-108, 7 C.R.S. (1998). The court of appeals reversed and directed dismissal of Walton’s complaint.”
Trinity Broad. of Denver, Inc. v. City of Westminster, 848 P.2d 916 (Colo. 1993). · cites it 10× “Moreover, the General Assembly provided in section 24-10-108 that issues of sovereign immunity are to be decided by the trial court if raised before trial.”
Martinez v. Est. of Bleck Ex Rel. Churchill, 2016 CO 58 (Colo. 2016). · cites it 8× “(2016) (referring to the waiver of a public entity's "sovereign immunity"); § 24-10-108 (stating that "sovereign immunity" is a bar to suit against a public entity for actions that lie in tort or could lie in tort).”
Springer v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 13 P.3d 794 (Colo. 2000). · cites it 12× “The trial court determined that the threshold plate was "constructed" by the City within the meaning of section 24-10-108(1), 7 C.R.S. (2000), notwithstanding the role of PCL as an independent contractor to the City.”
Swieckowski Ex Rel. Swieckowski v. City of Fort Collins, 934 P.2d 1380 (Colo. 1997). · cites it 10× “The court of appeals, acting under its authority in section 24-10-108, 10A C.R.S. (1996 Supp.”
City of Lakewood v. Brace, 919 P.2d 231 (Colo. 1996). · cites it 10× “The trial court found that these three claims were barred by the CGIA because they were tort claims and thus precluded under section 24-10-108, 10A C.R.S. (1995 Supp.”
v. Advisorlaw LLC, 2020 COA 122 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “2019 (orders concerning arbitration); § 24-10-108, C.R.S. 2019 (orders concerning sovereign immunity); § 24-10-118(2.”
Wood v. People, 255 P.3d 1136 (Colo. 2011). · cites it 3× “The court of appeals declined to review the trial court's pretrial ruling and affirmed Wood's conviction.”
Daniel v. City of Colorado Springs, 327 P.3d 891 (Colo. 2014). · cites it 7× “17 In a July 18, 2011 Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss ("Order"), the trial court summarily denied the City's Motion "for the reasons and analysis (and the legal authorities) contained in [Daniel's] Response.”
Show all 188 citing cases →
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-108(1) — 12 cases
Medina v. State, 35 P.3d 443 (Colo. 2001). “The state, arguing that it is immune from liability under the CGIA, brought a motion to dismiss these claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to C.”
Springer v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 13 P.3d 794 (Colo. 2000). “The trial court determined that the threshold plate was "constructed" by the City within the meaning of section 24-10-108(1), 7 C.R.S. (2000), notwithstanding the role of PCL as an independent contractor to the City.”
Jaffe v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 15 P.3d 806 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).
Padilla Ex Rel. Padilla v. Sch. Dist. No. 1 in the City & Cnty. of Denver, 25 P.3d 1176 (Colo. 2001).
Swieckowski Ex Rel. Swieckowski v. City of Fort Collins, 934 P.2d 1380 (Colo. 1997). “The court of appeals, acting under its authority in section 24-10-108, 10A C.R.S. (1996 Supp.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-108(2) — 4 cases
Steedle v. Sereff, 167 P.3d 135 (Colo. 2007).
Brown Grp. Retail, Inc. v. State & Colorado Dep't of Transp., 155 P.3d 481 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
Gallagher v. Bd. of Trs., 18 P.3d 837 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).
Open Door Ministries v. Lipschuetz, 373 P.3d 575 (Colo. 2016).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-108(4) — 2 cases
Neiberger v. Hawkins, 70 F. Supp. 2d 1177 (D. Colo. 1999).
Safari 300, Ltd. v. Hamilton Fam. Enter., Inc., 181 P.3d 278 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-108(4)(2a) — 1 case
St. Vrain Valley Sch. Dist. RE-1J v. A.R.L. ex rel. Loveland, 325 P.3d 1014 (Colo. 2014).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-108(4)(a) — 4 cases
People v. Moore, 338 P.3d 348 (Colo. Ct. App. 2013).
Henisse v. First Transit, Inc., 247 P.3d 577 (Colo. 2011).
People v. Gilbert, 12 P.3d 331 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).
Henisse v. First Transit, Inc., 220 P.3d 980 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-108(4)(b) — 2 cases
Sereff v. Waldman, 30 P.3d 754 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).
Safari 300, Ltd. v. Hamilton Fam. Enter., Inc., 181 P.3d 278 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-108(4)(b)(I) — 1 case
Villalpando v. Denver Health & Hosp. Auth., 181 P.3d 357 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-108(4)(b)(IID) — 1 case
Henisse v. First Transit, Inc., 247 P.3d 577 (Colo. 2011).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-108(5) — 11 cases
Colorado Special Districts Prop. & Liab. Pool v. Lyons, 277 P.3d 874 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
The Univ. of Colorado v. Booth, 78 P.3d 1098 (Colo. 2003).
Moran v. Stand. Ins. Co., 187 P.3d 1162 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
Daniel v. City of Colorado Springs, 327 P.3d 891 (Colo. 2014). “17 In a July 18, 2011 Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss ("Order"), the trial court summarily denied the City's Motion "for the reasons and analysis (and the legal authorities) contained in [Daniel's] Response.”
Robinson v. Colorado State Lottery Div., 155 P.3d 409 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-108(8) — 1 case
Harris v. Reg'l Transp. Dist., 15 P.3d 782 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-108(8)(a) — 3 cases
City of Colorado Springs v. Powell, 48 P.3d 561 (Colo. 2002).
Sereff v. Waldman, 30 P.3d 754 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).
Flores v. Colorado Dep't of Corr., 3 P.3d 464 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-10-108(B) — 1 case
Springer v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 13 P.3d 794 (Colo. 2000). “The trial court determined that the threshold plate was "constructed" by the City within the meaning of section 24-10-108(1), 7 C.R.S. (2000), notwithstanding the role of PCL as an independent contractor to the City.”
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.