Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 31
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-12-601 (2024)

Petition to disconnect territory

✓ 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

When a tract or contiguous tracts of land, aggregating twenty or more acres in area, are embraced within the municipal limits of any city, which are upon or contiguous to the border thereof, the owners of said tracts of land may petition the district court for the county in which such land, or any part thereof, is situated to have the same disconnected from said city.

Source: L. 75: Entire title R&RE, p. 1101, § 1, effective July 1.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 31-8-401 as it existed prior to 1975.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1980–2016 · leading case: Allely v. City of Evans, 124 P.3d 911 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Allely v. City of Evans, 124 P.3d 911 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 11× “Relying upon § 31-12-601, C.R.S.2005, which provides a procedure for disconnection of land from cities under specified circumstances, plaintiffs requested the court to order disconnection.”
Radcliff Props. Ltd. P'ship, LLLP v. City of Sheridan, 2012 COA 82, 296 P.3d 310. · cites it 12× “services to qualify for disconnection"; (4) holding that "Sheridan has provided the same municipal services on the same general terms and conditions as the rest of the municipality receives"; (5) holding that a petition to disconnect filed pursuant to section 31-12-119 must…”
Golden Run Estates, LLC v. Town of Erie, 2016 COA 145, 401 P.3d 87. · cites it 2× “" § 31-12-601, C.R.S. 2016. We need not address this section because Erie is a statutory town, not a statutory city, as both parties stipulated before the trial court.”
Master Kraft Builders Corp. v. City of Lakewood, 615 P.2d 47 (Colo. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “Petitioner first alleges error based upon the trial court’s ruling that the property was not “upon or contiguous to” or “located upon or adjacent to the border of” the city within the meaning of §§ 31-12-601 and 602(1), C.”
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.