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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-25-101 (2024)

Short title

✓ 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

This part 1 shall be known and may be cited as the "Urban Renewal Law".

Source: L. 75: Entire title R&RE, p. 1158, § 1, effective July 1. Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 31-25-101 as it existed prior to 1975.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1980–2022 · leading case: City & Cnty. of Denver v. Block 173 Assocs., 814 P.2d 824 (Colo. 1991).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City & Cnty. of Denver v. Block 173 Assocs., 814 P.2d 824 (Colo. 1991). · cites it 3× “hibits A and B are shams and subterfuges, prepared, promulgated, and enacted in bad faith, and having the purpose and effect of (a) subverting the letter and spirit of the Colorado Urban Renewal Law; and (b) allowing the defendants, under the guise of the Urban Renewal Law, to…”
Denver Urban Renewal Auth. v. Byrne, 618 P.2d 1374 (Colo. 1980). · cites it 2× “2d 976 (1980), was created pursuant to the Urban Renewal Law, section 31-25-101, et seq., C.R.S. 1973 (1977 Repl.”
Bailey v. People, 617 P.2d 549 (Colo. 1980). · cites it 4× “Petitioner Robert Edwards was employed by the Colorado Springs Urban Renewal Effort (CURE), an urban renewal authority organized under section 31-25-101, et seq., C.R.S. 1973. Petitioner Charles Bailey contracted with CURE to perform demolition work on its Alamo Plaza project.”
Thornton Dev. Auth. v. Upah, 640 F. Supp. 1071 (D. Colo. 1986). · cites it 2× “Petitioner Thornton Development Authority is an urban renewal authority established pursuant to Colo.Rev.Stat. §§ 31-25-101 et seq. TDA brought this condemnation proceeding against respondent Richard Upah pursuant to the eminent domain procedures set forth in Colo.”
Vigoda v. Denver Urban Renewal Auth., 646 P.2d 900 (Colo. 1982). “); that in exercising her right of freedom of speech she was critical of decisions made by DURA concerning land adjacent to the Tower; that DURA’s refusal to negotiate with her was a result of her exercising her constitutional rights; and, as a consequence, she was damaged.”
Oberndorf v. City & Cnty. of Denver, 696 F. Supp. 552 (D. Colo. 1988). · cites it 4× “Colorado’s Urban Renewal Law is set forth at Colo.Rev.Stat. §§ 31-25-101 et seq. The City thus began taking the actions necessary to adopt an urban renewal plan.”
Cornerstone Grp. XXII, L.L.C. v. Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Auth., 151 P.3d 601 (Colo. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “2005, which authorizes an urban renewal authority "to make and execute any and all contracts and other instruments which it may deem necessary or convenient to the exercise of its [urban renewal] powers under this part 1"; (2) § 31-25-105(1)(e), C.”
AURORA URBAN RENEWAL Auth. v. PK KAISER, 2022 COA 5, 507 P.3d 1033. “3d 1037 ¶ 1 This case addresses the financing of urban renewal projects under Colorado's Urban Renewal Law (URL), sections 31-25-101 to - 116, C.R.S. 2021, and, more specifically, the intricacies of Tax Increment Financing (TIF), which is central to the viability of urban…”
Mehaffy, Rider, Windholz & Wilson v. Cent. Bank Denver, N.A., 892 P.2d 230 (Colo. 1995). “The Town created the Authority pursuant to the “Urban Renewal Law,” §§ 31-25-101 to -115, 12B C.R.S. (1986 & 1994 Supp.”
Arvada Urban Renewal Auth. v. Columbine Prof'l Plaza Ass'n, 85 P.3d 1066 (Colo. 2004). · cites it 2× “Introduction In this urban renewal case, we consider the scope of an urban renewal authority’s condemnation power under Colorado’s Urban Renewal Law, §§ 31-25-101 to -115, 9 C.R.S. (2003). In particular, we consider whether an urban renewal authority retains the power to condemn…”
Tracy v. City of Boulder, 635 P.2d 907 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981). “The case involves plaintiffs’ challenge to the City of Boulder’s creation of an urban renewal authority pursuant to §§ 31-25-101 et seq. C.R.S.1973 (1980 Cum.”
Bd. of Commissioners v. City of Broomfield, 7 P.3d 1033 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000). “The Board of Commissioners of the County of Boulder (BOCC), along with Adams County, the commissioners of Boulder and Adams Counties, in their official and individual capacities, and an individual taxpayer (plaintiffs), filed suit against defendants, al *1035 leging that the…”
Show all 17 citing cases →
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.