Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 25-12-104 (2026)

Action to abate

✓ current as of July 2026

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

Whenever there is reason to believe that a nuisance exists, as defined in section 25-12-103, any county or resident of the state may maintain an action in equity in the district court of the judicial district in which the alleged nuisance exists to abate and prevent such nuisance and to perpetually enjoin the person conducting or maintaining the same and the owner, lessee, or agent of the building or place in or upon which such nuisance exists from directly or indirectly maintaining or permitting such nuisance. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, a county shall not maintain an action pursuant to this section if the alleged nuisance involves a mining operation or the development, extraction, or transportation of construction materials, as those terms are defined in section 34-32.5-103, C.R.S., a commercial activity, the commercial use of property, avalanche control activities, a farming or ranching activity, an activity of a utility, or a mining or oil and gas operation. When proceedings by injunction are instituted, such proceedings shall be conducted under the Colorado rules of civil procedure. The court may stay the effect of any order issued under this section for such time as is reasonably necessary for the defendant to come into compliance with the provisions of this article.

Source: L. 71: p. 649, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 66-35-4. L. 2008: Entire section amended, p. 57, § 1, effective August 5.

Cross references: For injunctions, see C.R.C.P. 65.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: City of Lakewood v. DeRoos, 631 P.2d 1140 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

City of Lakewood v. DeRoos, 631 P.2d 1140 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 4× “See § 25-12-104, C.R.S.1973. Therefore, although the owner may be exposed to greater amounts of noise, pollution, or traffic, these adverse effects are not different in kind from the effects suffered by the public in general.”

McDowell v. United States, 870 P.2d 656 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “”); § 25-12-104, C.R.S. (1989 Repl.Vol. 11 A) (“Whenever there is reason to believe that a nuisance exists .”

Einarsen v. City of Wheat Ridge, 604 P.2d 691 (Colo. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 3× “Section 25-12-104, C.R.S.1973. But, nowhere does the statute proscribe residential development of property impacted by excessive noise; thus, the court’s finding designating the statute to be confiscatory of these plaintiffs’ property is not sustainable.”

Bd. of Cty. Com. Cty. of Logan v. Vandemoer, 205 P.3d 423 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). “1, § 25-12-104, 2008 Colo. Sess. Laws-(H.B. 08-1065 amendment effective Aug.”

Northside v. Notes Live (Colo. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “Section 25-12-104, as relevant here, provides: Whenever there is reason to believe that a nuisance exists .”

Goodman v. South Suburban (Colo. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “See § 25-12-104, C.R.S. 2025 (authorizing any resident of the state to “maintain an action in equity .”

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.