Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-72-101

Records destroyed - certified copies rerecorded

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Whenever it appears that the records, or any material part thereof, of any county in this state have been destroyed by fire or otherwise, any map, plat, deed, conveyance, contract, mortgage, deed of trust, or other instrument in writing of whatever nature or character affecting real estate or irrigation ditches in such county, or certified copies thereof, may be rerecorded, and in recording the same the recorder shall record the certificate of the previous record, and the date of filing for record appearing in said original certificate so recorded shall be deemed and taken as the date of the record thereof, and copies of any such record so authorized to be made under this section, duly certified by the recorder of any such county under his seal of office, shall be received in evidence and have the same force and effect as certified copies of the original record.

Source: L. 1889: p. 302, § 1. R.S. 08: § 5269. C.L. § 5026. CSA: C. 135, § 1. CRS 53: § 113-1-1. C.R.S. 1963: § 113-1-1. Cross references: For certified copies of papers filed in office of county clerk and recorder as prima facie evidence, see § 30-10-413; for the rule of evidence relating certified copies of public records, see C.R.E. 902(4).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 15 cases, 1988–2005 · leading case: Colorado-Ute Electric Ass'n v. Public Utilities Commission

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Colorado-Ute Electric Ass'n v. Public Utilities Commission (1988) colo · cites it 2× “It held that the Commission's procedures did not violate the Colorado Open Records Act; §§ 24-72-101 to -309, 10 C.R.S. (1982), or the due process clauses of the United States and Colorado Constitutions.”

Pierce v. St. Vrain Valley School District RE-1J (1999) colo · cites it 2× “Pierce’s resignation and forbidding disparaging comments were void because they violated public policy as expressed in Colorado Constitution article II, section 10, and in the Open Records Act, sections 24-72-101 to -402, 7 C.R.S. (1998).”

Shields v. Shetler (1988) cod · cites it 2× “On its face that act does not create a property interest against disclosure. Moreover the plaintiff does not cite any authority supporting his contention that the act confers the asserted property interest.”

Gumina v. City of Sterling (2004) coloctapp “Plan, 961 P.2d 597, 601 (Colo.App.1998). A.”

Office of the State Court Administrator v. Background Information Services, Inc. (1999) colo “ts of the Public Records Act; Whether,' pursuant to sections 24-72-204(l)(c) and 24-72-305(l)(b), Chief Justice Directive 98-05, amended October 2, 1998, is a rule or order of the Court permitting the State Court Administrator to deny a request for inspection, disclosure or…”

Citizens Progressive Alliance v. Southwestern Water Conservation District (2004) coloctapp “In this action arising out of a request for public records under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA), § 24-72-101, et seq., C.R.S.2003, plaintiffs, Citizens Progressive Alliance (CPA) and Steve Cone, appeal a trial court judgment in favor of defendants, Southwestern Water…”

Mason v. Stock (1994) ksd “The court also looked to provisions of the Colorado Open Records Laws, C.R.S. § 24-72-101 et seq., similar to K.”

Tax Data Corp. v. Hutt (1991) coloctapp “In response, the corporation filed a request for public records under the Colorado Open Records Act, § 24-72-101, et seq., C.R.S. (1988 *355 Repl.”

Pruitt v. Rockwell (1994) coloctapp “Petitioner requested respondents to make certain materials available for his inspection pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act, *317 § 24-72-101, et seq., C.R.S. (1988 Repl.Vol.”

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 68 v. Denver Metropolitan Major League Baseball Stadium District (1994) coloctapp “IBEW filed suit and the trial court issued an order to show cause why the redacted material and pre-qualification documents should not be produced pursuant' to the Colorado *163 Open Records Act, § 24-72-101 et seq, C.R.S. (1988 Repl.Vol.”

In Re Bd. of Cty. Com'rs, Cty. of Arapahoe (2004) coloctapp “Respondents, Tracy Baker and Leesa Sale, appeal the judgment of the trial court requiring the release of 622 of their e-mails, including 570 sexually explicit or romantic e-mails, under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA), § 24-72-101, et seq., C.R.S.2002. We reverse in part,…”

Denver Post Corp. v. Cook (2005) coloctapp “We further conclude, however, that they are public records, the disclosure of which is governed by the Colorado Open Records Act, § 24-72-101, et seq., C.R.8.2008 (CORA). Our review of a trial court's interpretation of a statute is de novo.”

Show all 15 citing cases →

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.