Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 33
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-14-103 (2024)

Proof of ownership for registration purposes

✓ 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

(1) The division shall require proof of ownership for snowmobiles purchased on or after July 1, 1976, prior to the registration of a snowmobile under this article, but such proof shall not be dependent upon any certificate of title, and no such certificate shall be issued by the division.

(2) The division shall keep a record of the manufacturer's number of all snowmobiles registered pursuant to this article and shall provide the department of revenue with a copy of said record monthly. The department of revenue shall maintain a computerized list of such record in order to aid in the recovery of stolen snowmobiles.

Source: L. 84: Entire article added, p. 907, § 2, effective January 1, 1985.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 33-7-102.5 as it existed prior to 1984.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1997–2011 · leading case: Glover v. Vail Corp., 955 F. Supp. 105 (D. Colo. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Glover v. Vail Corp., 955 F. Supp. 105 (D. Colo. 1997). “See § 33-14-103(7). Therefore, according to the plain language of the Act, Glasser’s collision with Glover was an “inherent danger and risk of skiing,” and Glover may not recover from Vail for her injuries resulting from the collision.”
Johnson ex rel. Johnson v. Bodenhausen, 835 F. Supp. 2d 1092 (D. Colo. 2011). · cites it 2× “See Colo.Rev.Stat. § 33-14-103(7). And in this action, Kane Johnson is attempting to “make [a] claim against [and] recover from [Breckenridge] for injury.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 33-14-103(7): 2 cases
Glover v. Vail Corp., 955 F. Supp. 105 (D. Colo. 1997). “See § 33-14-103(7). Therefore, according to the plain language of the Act, Glasser’s collision with Glover was an “inherent danger and risk of skiing,” and Glover may not recover from Vail for her injuries resulting from the collision.”
Johnson ex rel. Johnson v. Bodenhausen, 835 F. Supp. 2d 1092 (D. Colo. 2011). “See Colo.Rev.Stat. § 33-14-103(7). And in this action, Kane Johnson is attempting to “make [a] claim against [and] recover from [Breckenridge] for injury.”
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.