(1) (a) If any landowner or any registered elector in the area proposed to be annexed, the board of county commissioners of any county governing the area proposed to be annexed, or any municipality within one mile of the area proposed to be annexed believes itself to be aggrieved by the acts of the governing body of the annexing municipality in annexing said area to said municipality, such acts or findings of the governing body may be reviewed by certiorari in accordance with the Colorado rules of civil procedure. Such review proceedings shall be instituted in any district court having jurisdiction of the county in which the annexed area is located. In no event shall such a proceeding be instituted prior to the effective date of the annexing ordinance by the annexing municipality.
(b) If the annexed area is located within two or more counties, review proceedings may be brought in any district court having jurisdiction of any one of such counties. In all such certiorari proceedings under this part 1, the district court shall be presided over by a judge appointed by the chief justice of the supreme court of the state of Colorado, which judge shall not be from the judicial district in which the area proposed to be annexed is located nor from a judicial district contiguous thereto.
(2) (a) (I) All such actions to review the findings and the decision of the governing body shall be brought within sixty days after the effective date of the ordinance, and, if such action is not brought within such time, such action shall forever be barred.
(II) All such actions to review the findings and the decision of the governing body shall be subject to the following requirement, which is a condition precedent to the right to obtain judicial review under this section: Any party bringing such action shall first have filed a motion for reconsideration within ten days of the effective date of the ordinance finalizing the challenged annexation, which motion shall state with particularity the grounds upon which judicial review is sought.
(III) The district court shall schedule such actions for expedited hearing.
(IV) In the event that the person bringing an action pursuant to this section fails to substantially prevail, the court may award the municipality its reasonable attorney fees and costs of defense.
(b) In any action brought within the sixty-day limitation of paragraph (a) of this subsection (2) to review the annexation of an enclave pursuant to section 31-12-106 (1), the court may review the findings and determinations of the governing body in annexing any territory which, in whole or in part, resulted in the creation of the enclave. If the court finds that any such prior annexation resulted in the creation of a municipal boundary that consists of public rights-of-way as set forth in section 31-12-106 (1.1)(a)(I) or occurred without compliance with section 30 of article II of the state constitution as set forth in section 31-12-106 (1.1)(a)(II), it shall declare the annexation of the enclave to be void, but no such finding or decision shall affect the validity of the prior annexation.
(3) Review proceedings instituted under this section shall not be extended further than to determine whether the governing body has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion under the provisions of this part 1.
(4) Any annexation accomplished in accordance with the provisions of this part 1 shall not be directly or collaterally questioned in any suit, action, or proceeding, except as expressly authorized in this section.
(5) If the hearing has not been stenographically reported as provided in section 31-12- 109 (2) and if the court determines, after proper investigation, that the minutes of the hearing are not adequate to form the basis for a determination of the issue in the certiorari proceedings, the court may proceed to try the issue de novo.
(6) All proceedings for judicial review of any annexation proceeding under this part 1 shall be advanced as a matter of immediate public interest and concern and heard at the earliest practical moment. The courts shall be open at all times for the purposes of this part 1.
Source: L. 75: Entire title R&RE, p. 1089, § 1, effective July 1. L. 81: (2) amended, p. 1511, § 2, effective July 1. L. 87: (1)(a) and (2) amended, p. 1221, § 7, effective May 28. L. 90:
(1)(a) amended, p. 1479, § 1, effective March 9. L. 97: (2)(b) amended, p. 996, § 6, effective May 27. L. 2006: (2)(b) amended, p. 1008, § 2, effective September 1. L. 2010: (1)(a) amended, (HB 10-1259), ch. 211, p. 919, § 11, effective August 11.
Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 31-8-116 as it existed prior to 1975.
Notes of Decisions
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of the Cnty. of Teller v. City of Woodland Park, 2014 CO 35, 333 P.3d 55.
· cites it 39× “T1 The Board of Commissioners of the County of Teller (the County) filed 3 "Petition for Review of Annexations Pursuant to C.R.S. 31-12-116," seeking the district court's review of the City of Woodland Park's (the City's) annexation of certain real property.”
Golden Run Estates, LLC v. Town of Erie, 2016 COA 145, 401 P.3d 87.
· cites it 44× “Subject Matter Jurisdiction ¶ 18 Erie contends that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ contract claims because they did not bring their claims within the.”
Town of Minturn v. Sensible Hous. Co., 2012 CO 23, 273 P.3d 1154.
· cites it 17× “Sensible sought judicial review of the annexation pursuant to section 31-12-116, C.R.S. (2011), asserting that Minturn exceeded its jurisdiction and abused its discretion by approving the annexation of the property without an election, due to the ongoing dispute as to the…”
City of Greenwood Vill. v. for the Proposed City of Centennial, 3 P.3d 427 (Colo. 2000).
· cites it 4× “This subsection (2) shall apply only if such area proposed for incorporation contains more than seventy-five thousand inhabitants and such petition is filed: (I) Prior to the expiration of the sixty-day limitation on review proceedings contained in section 31-12-116(2)(a); or…”
GERALNES BV v. City of Greenwood Vill., Colo., 583 F. Supp. 830 (D. Colo. 1984).
· cites it 11× “§ 31-12-116 Defendant alleges that Colo.Rev. Stat. § 31-12-116 precludes plaintiffs from challenging the annexation of the Tech Center and prevents plaintiffs from pursuing the remedy of disconnection.”
Town of Superior v. Midcities Co., 933 P.2d 596 (Colo. 1997).
· cites it 7× “On October 22, 1993, Midcities Company filed a complaint in the trial court pursuant to section 31-12-116, 12B C.R.S. (1996 Supp.”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. City of Aurora, 62 P.3d 1049 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 6× “After the city annexed the property, the county initiated this action seeking judicial review under § 31-12-116, C.R.S. 2002. The county asserted that its designation as “open space” of two county roads between and adjacent to two of the parcels defeated contiguity requirements;…”
Berry Props. v. City of Com. City, 667 P.2d 247 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 12× “Nevertheless, the plaintiffs argue that their action is not controlled by § 31-12-116, C.R.S.1973 (1977 RepLVol. 12).”
Sinclair Mktg. Inc. v. City of Com. City, 226 P.3d 1239 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 7× “The City requested attorney fees and costs under section 31-12-116(2)(a)(IV), which provides: In the event that the person bringing an action pursuant to this section fails to substantially prevail, the court may award the municipality its reasonable attorney fees and costs of…”
Richter v. City of Greenwood Vill., 577 P.2d 776 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 8× “The evidence was uncontroverted that by virtue of certain previous litigation, the properties of all other plaintiffs were excluded from the area subject to the annexation proceedings, and accordingly, they cannot now complain of the proposed annexation of property owned by…”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. City of Greenwood Vill., 30 P.3d 846 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Accordingly, we agree with the district court that the City Council did not exeeed its jurisdiction or abuse its discretion in determining that the Cooper parcel annexation met the one-sixth contiguity requirement.”
In re Interrogatory on House Bill 21-1164, 2021 CO 34.
· cites it 3× “After assessing the town’s conduct, this court voided the ordinances effecting the annexation under section 31-12-116(3), C.R.S. (2020). Midcities Co.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-12-116(1): 1 case
GERALNES BV v. City of Greenwood Vill., Colo., 583 F. Supp. 830 (D. Colo. 1984).
“§ 31-12-116 Defendant alleges that Colo.Rev. Stat. § 31-12-116 precludes plaintiffs from challenging the annexation of the Tech Center and prevents plaintiffs from pursuing the remedy of disconnection.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-12-116(1)(a): 5 cases
Richter v. City of Greenwood Vill., 577 P.2d 776 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978).
“The evidence was uncontroverted that by virtue of certain previous litigation, the properties of all other plaintiffs were excluded from the area subject to the annexation proceedings, and accordingly, they cannot now complain of the proposed annexation of property owned by…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-12-116(2): 2 cases
Richter v. City of Greenwood Vill., 577 P.2d 776 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978).
“The evidence was uncontroverted that by virtue of certain previous litigation, the properties of all other plaintiffs were excluded from the area subject to the annexation proceedings, and accordingly, they cannot now complain of the proposed annexation of property owned by…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-12-116(2)(a): 1 case
City of Greenwood Vill. v. for the Proposed City of Centennial, 3 P.3d 427 (Colo. 2000).
“This subsection (2) shall apply only if such area proposed for incorporation contains more than seventy-five thousand inhabitants and such petition is filed: (I) Prior to the expiration of the sixty-day limitation on review proceedings contained in section 31-12-116(2)(a); or…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-12-116(2)(a)(I): 2 cases
Golden Run Estates, LLC v. Town of Erie, 2016 COA 145, 401 P.3d 87.
“Subject Matter Jurisdiction ¶ 18 Erie contends that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ contract claims because they did not bring their claims within the.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-12-116(2)(a)(II): 4 cases
Golden Run Estates, LLC v. Town of Erie, 2016 COA 145, 401 P.3d 87.
“Subject Matter Jurisdiction ¶ 18 Erie contends that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ contract claims because they did not bring their claims within the.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-12-116(2)(a)(IV): 3 cases
Sinclair Mktg. Inc. v. City of Com. City, 226 P.3d 1239 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).
“The City requested attorney fees and costs under section 31-12-116(2)(a)(IV), which provides: In the event that the person bringing an action pursuant to this section fails to substantially prevail, the court may award the municipality its reasonable attorney fees and costs of…”
Golden Run Estates, LLC v. Town of Erie, 2016 COA 145, 401 P.3d 87.
“Subject Matter Jurisdiction ¶ 18 Erie contends that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ contract claims because they did not bring their claims within the.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-12-116(2)(a)(Il): 1 case
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-12-116(2)(b): 1 case
Sinclair Mktg. Inc. v. City of Com. City, 226 P.3d 1239 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).
“The City requested attorney fees and costs under section 31-12-116(2)(a)(IV), which provides: In the event that the person bringing an action pursuant to this section fails to substantially prevail, the court may award the municipality its reasonable attorney fees and costs of…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-12-116(3): 3 cases
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. City of Aurora, 62 P.3d 1049 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
“After the city annexed the property, the county initiated this action seeking judicial review under § 31-12-116, C.R.S. 2002. The county asserted that its designation as “open space” of two county roads between and adjacent to two of the parcels defeated contiguity requirements;…”
In re Interrogatory on House Bill 21-1164, 2021 CO 34.
“After assessing the town’s conduct, this court voided the ordinances effecting the annexation under section 31-12-116(3), C.R.S. (2020). Midcities Co.”
Town of Superior v. Midcities Co., 933 P.2d 596 (Colo. 1997).
“On October 22, 1993, Midcities Company filed a complaint in the trial court pursuant to section 31-12-116, 12B C.R.S. (1996 Supp.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-12-116(4): 3 cases
Berry Props. v. City of Com. City, 667 P.2d 247 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983).
“Nevertheless, the plaintiffs argue that their action is not controlled by § 31-12-116, C.R.S.1973 (1977 RepLVol. 12).”
Golden Run Estates, LLC v. Town of Erie, 2016 COA 145, 401 P.3d 87.
“Subject Matter Jurisdiction ¶ 18 Erie contends that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ contract claims because they did not bring their claims within the.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-12-116(5): 1 case
Town of Superior v. Midcities Co., 933 P.2d 596 (Colo. 1997).
“On October 22, 1993, Midcities Company filed a complaint in the trial court pursuant to section 31-12-116, 12B C.R.S. (1996 Supp.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-12-116(8): 2 cases
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. City of Greenwood Vill., 30 P.3d 846 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001).
“Accordingly, we agree with the district court that the City Council did not exeeed its jurisdiction or abuse its discretion in determining that the Cooper parcel annexation met the one-sixth contiguity requirement.”
Sinclair Mktg. Inc. v. City of Com. City, 226 P.3d 1239 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).
“The City requested attorney fees and costs under section 31-12-116(2)(a)(IV), which provides: In the event that the person bringing an action pursuant to this section fails to substantially prevail, the court may award the municipality its reasonable attorney fees and costs of…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-12-116(l)(a): 4 cases
Berry Props. v. City of Com. City, 667 P.2d 247 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983).
“Nevertheless, the plaintiffs argue that their action is not controlled by § 31-12-116, C.R.S.1973 (1977 RepLVol. 12).”
Town of Superior v. Midcities Co., 933 P.2d 596 (Colo. 1997).
“On October 22, 1993, Midcities Company filed a complaint in the trial court pursuant to section 31-12-116, 12B C.R.S. (1996 Supp.”
Golden Run Estates, LLC v. Town of Erie, 2016 COA 145, 401 P.3d 87.
“Subject Matter Jurisdiction ¶ 18 Erie contends that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ contract claims because they did not bring their claims within the.”
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.