Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 34
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34-60-114 (2026)

Action for damages

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Nothing in this article, and no suit by or against the commission, and no violation charged or asserted against any person under any provisions of this article, or any rule, regulation, or order issued under this article, shall impair, abridge, or delay any cause of action for damages which any person may have or assert against any person violating any provision of this article, or any rule, regulation, or order issued under this article. Any person so damaged by the violation may sue for and recover such damages as he otherwise may be entitled to receive. In the event the commission fails to bring suit to enjoin any actual or threatened violation of this article, or of any rule, regulation, or order made under this article, then any person or party in interest adversely affected and who has notified the commission in writing of such violation or threat thereof and has requested the commission to sue, may, to prevent any or further violation, bring suit for that purpose in the district court of any county in which the commission could have brought suit. If, in such suit, the court holds that injunctive relief should be granted, then the commission shall be made a party and shall be substituted for the person who brought the suit, and the injunction shall be issued as if the commission had at all times been the complaining party. Source: L. 51: p. 657, § 9(d). CSA: C. 118, § 68(9)(d). CRS 53: § 100-6-10. C.R.S. 1963: § 100-6-10.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2025 · leading case: Gerrity Oil & Gas Corp. v. Magness, 946 P.2d 913 (Colo. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Gerrity Oil & Gas Corp. v. Magness, 946 P.2d 913 (Colo. 1997). · cites it 52× “(1995), or regulations (rules or commission rules) promulgated by the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (commission).”
Town of Frederick v. North Am. Resources Co., 60 P.3d 758 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “In support of this argument, the Town cites § 34-60-114, C.R.S.2001, which allows “any person or party in interest adversely affected” to sue to enjoin violations of COGCC rules if the COGCC has failed to do so.”
Grant Bros. Ranch, LLC v. Antero Resources Piceance Corp, 2016 COA 178 (Colo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “See § 34-60-114, C.R.S. 2016. 6 . There are exceptions to administrative exhaustion, but none was invoked here.”
Gerrity Oil & Gas Corp. v. Magness, 923 P.2d 261 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 6× “The first issue is whether § 34-60-114, C.R.S. (1995 Repl.Vol. 14) provides a private right of action for those injured as a result of the failure of another to comply with certain statutes and regulations relating to the oil and gas industry.”
Pinon Sun Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) SE (D. Colo. 2019). · cites it 6× “, the Colorado Supreme Court applied the same framework to Colo. Rev. Stat. § 34-60-114 (1995) and concluded that the statute did not provide surface owners a private right of action for an oil and gas operator’s violation of statutes or regulations regarding the operator’s use…”
McCormick v. HRM Resources, LLC (D. Colo. 2025). · cites it 2× “§ 34-60-114, a plaintiff pursuing injunctive relief involving an alleged violation of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act and its related rules and regulations must” exhaust administrative remedies by notifying the commission of the violation and requesting the commission to sue.”
Matthews v. Ankor Energy, LLC (S.D. Ala. 2018). “Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 34-60-114 (West 2018).”
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.