Colorado Revised Statutes
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-6-401 (2026)
Declaration of policy
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
It is declared to be a matter of statewide concern and the policy of this state that the formation of public policy is public business and may not be conducted in secret.
Source: Initiated 72. L. 73: p. 1666, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 3-37-401. L. 91: Entire section amended, p. 815, § 1, effective June 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2026 · leading case: Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of the Cnty. of San Miguel v. Colorado Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 157 P.3d 1083 (Colo. 2007).
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of the Cnty. of San Miguel v. Colorado Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 157 P.3d 1083 (Colo. 2007). “See §§ 24-6-401 to -402, C.R.S. (2006). The Commission also broadcast this meeting over the Internet.”
Benson v. McCormick, 578 P.2d 651 (Colo. 1978). “Section 24-6-401, et seq., C.R.S.1973. The trial court held that the Open Meetings Law did not conflict with the provisions of our constitution, found that "full and timely notice to the public" had been given, and dismissed the complaint.”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, Costilla Cnty. v. Costilla Cnty. Conservancy Dist., 88 P.3d 1188 (Colo. 2004). “Introduction In this case, we consider whether the Board of County Commissioners of Costilla County was required under Colorado’s Open Meetings Law, § 24-6-401 to -402, 7B C.R.S. (2003) (“OML”), to give notice of a meeting called by two state agencies and a private mine that was…”
Cole v. State, 673 P.2d 345 (Colo. 1983). “2d 651 (1978); see also section 24-6-401, C.R.S.1973 (1982 Repl.Vol.”
Van Alstyne v. Hous. Auth. of Pueblo, 985 P.2d 97 (Colo. Ct. App. 1999). “” Section 24-6-401, C.R.S.1998. Thus, the intent of the law is to afford the public access to a broad range of meetings at which public business is considered.”
Gilpin Cnty. Bd. of Equalization v. Russell, 941 P.2d 257 (Colo. 1997). “), with limited exception, provides that agencies and officers subject to its provisions must conduct their business in public session. The Open Meetings Law, however, does not authorize, provide or require that a quasi-judicial officer may be called as a witness in a subsequent…”
Gumina v. City of Sterling, 119 P.3d 527 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004). “We review de novo the interpretation of the Open Meetings Law, § 24-6-401, et seq., C.R.9$.2004, and the Open Records Law, § 24-72-101, et seq.”
Uberoi v. Univ. of Colorado, 686 P.2d 785 (Colo. 1984). “The plaintiffs argued that the phrase "unless otherwise provided by law," which qualifies the grant of powers to the regents in Colo.”
Wisdom Works Counseling Servs., P.C. v. Colorado Dep't of Corr., 2015 COA 118 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015). “" § 24-6-401. It is "intended to afford the public access to a broad range of meetings at which public business is considered.”
Guy, T v. Whitsitt, 2020 COA 93 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). “Whitsitt — Administrative Law — Colorado Sunshine Act — Open Meetings Law Under a provision in the Colorado Open Meetings Law, sections 24-6-401 to -402, C.R.S. 2019, a local public body may meet in closed, executive session if, among other things, it identifies for the public…”
Free Speech Def. Comm. v. Thomas, 80 P.3d 935 (Colo. Ct. App. 2003). “Section 24-6-401, C.R.S.2002, provides: “It is declared to be a matter of statewide concern and the policy of this state that the formation of public policy is public business and may not be conducted in secret.”
Colo. Med. Bd. v. McLaughlin, 2018 COA 41 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018). “S. 2017. Further, any meeting at which a proposed policy is adopted may be held only after “full and timely notice to the public.”
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.