Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 30
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 30-15-411 (2024)

Conflicts with state statutes

✓ C.R.S. 2024: the 2025 and 2026 sessions are not included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

No county shall adopt an ordinance that is in conflict with any state statute.

Source: L. 79: Entire part added, p. 1147, § 1, effective May 24.

PART 5

DANCE HALLS

Editor's note: This part 5 was added with relocations in 2017. Former C.R.S. section numbers are shown in editor's notes following those sections that were relocated.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1983–2009 · leading case: Colorado Mining Ass'n v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of Summit Cnty., 199 P.3d 718 (Colo. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Colorado Mining Ass'n v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of Summit Cnty., 199 P.3d 718 (Colo. 2009). · cites it 5× “First, section 30-15-411, C.R.S. (2008), provides that any statutory county ordinance that conflicts with a state statute is void.”
C & M Sand & Gravel, Div. of C & M Ready Mix Concrete Co. of Boulder v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 673 P.2d 1013 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 3× “The commissioners contend that land use concerns are not included within the scope of either of these statutes and that land use regulation has not been preempted. We agree with the commissioners.”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Bowen/Edwards Assocs., Inc., 830 P.2d 1045 (Colo. 1992). “Although a county is prohibited by statute from adopting an ordinance that “is in conflict with any state statute,” § 30-15-411, 12A C.R.S. (1986), an ordinance and a statute may both remain effective and enforceable as long as they do not contain express or implied conditions…”
Hudspeth v. Bd. of Cnty. Com'rs of Routt, 667 P.2d 775 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 3× “Section 30-15-411, C.R.S.1973 (1982 Cum.Supp.”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Martin, 856 P.2d 62 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “It argues that the intent of the statute was to leave enforcement of the provisions of the statute, including screening, to local authorities, and it asserts that it is in the best position to establish requirements for effective screening in its area of jurisdiction.”
Bd. of Cty. Com. Cty. of Logan v. Vandemoer, 205 P.3d 423 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “” § 30-15-411, C.R.S.2007; see Colo. Mining Ass’n v.”
Wilkinson v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 872 P.2d 1269 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “And, although a county is statutorily prohibited from adopting an ordinance that is in conflict with any state statute, § 30-15-411, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 12A), an ordinance and a statute may both remain effective and enforceable as long as they do not contain express or…”
City of Aurora v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 902 P.2d 375 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “See § 30-15-411, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 12A); see also C & M Sand & Gravel v.”
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.