Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 25
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-12-101 (2026)

Legislative declaration

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

The general assembly finds and declares that noise is a major source of environmental pollution which represents a threat to the serenity and quality of life in the state of Colorado. Excess noise often has an adverse physiological and psychological effect on human beings, thus contributing to an economic loss to the community. Accordingly, it is the policy of the general assembly to establish statewide standards for noise level limits for various time periods and areas. Noise in excess of the limits provided in this article constitutes a public nuisance.

Source: L. 71: p. 647, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 66-35-1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1979–2024 · leading case: Pub. Serv. Co. of Colorado v. Van Wyk, 27 P.3d 377 (Colo. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pub. Serv. Co. of Colorado v. Van Wyk, 27 P.3d 377 (Colo. 2001). · cites it 2× “In its determination that the increase in noise levels likely to be occasioned by the transmission line upgrade was reasonable, PUC declined to use the public nuisance noise standards, § 25-12-101, 8 C.R.S. (2000), as a standard of reasonableness.”
Matthew K Hobbs v. City of Salida, 550 P.3d 193 (Colo. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 7× “The majority concludes that the plain language of section 25-12-103(11) provides municipal entities, such as the City of Salida, with the authority to issue amplified noise permits to private entities to hold cultural, entertainment, athletic, or patriotic events, including, but…”
City of Lakewood v. DeRoos, 631 P.2d 1140 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “The owner contends that expert testimony would establish that the noise levels his property will be subject to would violate the maximum permissible levels established in the noise abatement statutes, § 25-12-101, et seq., C.R.S.1973, while those levels would not be exceeded on…”
Landmark Land Co. v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 728 P.2d 1281 (Colo. 1986). “, §§ 25-12-101 et seq., 11 C.R.S. (1982 & 1986 Supp.”
Einarsen v. City of Wheat Ridge, 604 P.2d 691 (Colo. Ct. App. 1979). “Initially, we note that the focus of this dispute below centered on Colorado’s Noise Abatement Statute, § 25-12-101 et seq., C.R.S.1973. It was assumed by the parties, and the trial court, that this statute precludes residential development when noise emanating onto property…”
Davis v. Izaak Walton League of Am., 717 P.2d 984 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “On that basis, the court enjoined defendant’s further use of its property as a shooting range until it remedies the fugitive dust problem and brings the noise from discharging firearms within statutory limits of § 25-12-101, et seq., C.R.S. (1982 RepLVol.”
Northside v. Notes Live (Colo. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “See §§ 25-12-101 to -110, C.R.S. 2024. Neighbors appeal the district court’s judgment granting the motions of defendants, Notes Live and the City of Colorado Springs (the City), to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under C.”
Archipley v. Telluride Council for the Arts & Humanities (D. Colo. 2022). “Federal Court Action On June 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant, seeking relief under both a private nuisance common law claim and the noise abatement/public nuisance statute, Colorado Revised Statutes § 25-12-101 et seq. (“Federal Court Action”).”
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.