Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 40-6-115 (2026)

Review by district court - mandamus

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

(1) Within thirty days after a final decision by the commission in any proceeding, any party to the proceeding before the commission may apply to the district court for a writ of certiorari or review for the purpose of having the lawfulness of the final decision inquired into and determined. Such writ shall be made returnable not later than thirty days after the date of issuance and shall direct the commission to certify its record in the proceeding to said court. On the return day, the cause shall be heard by the district court unless, for a good reason shown, the same be continued. No new or additional evidence may be introduced in the district court, but the cause shall be heard on the record of the commission as certified by it. The commission and each party to the action or proceeding before the commission shall have the right to appear in the review proceedings.

(2) The findings and conclusions of the commission on disputed questions of fact shall be final and shall not be subject to review, except that, in any proceeding wherein the validity of any order or decision is challenged on the ground that it violates any right of a petitioner under the constitution of the United States or the constitution of the state of Colorado, the district court shall exercise an independent judgment on the law and the facts, and the findings or conclusions of the commission material to the determination of the said constitutional question shall not be final.

(3) Upon review, the district court shall enter judgment either affirming, setting aside, or modifying the decision of the commission. So far as necessary to the decision and where presented, the district court shall decide all relevant questions of law and interpret all relevant constitutional and statutory provisions. The review shall not extend further than to determine whether the commission has regularly pursued its authority, including a determination of whether the decision under review violates any right of the petitioner under the constitution of the United States or of the state of Colorado, and whether the decision of the commission is just and reasonable and whether its conclusions are in accordance with the evidence.

(4) The provisions of the Colorado rules of civil procedure relating to writs of certiorari or review, so far as applicable and not in conflict with the provisions of this title, shall apply to proceedings had in the district court under the provisions of this section. No court of this state, except the district court to the extent specified, shall have jurisdiction to review, reverse, correct, or annul any order or decision of the commission, or to suspend or delay the execution or operation thereof, or to enjoin, restrain, or interfere with the commission in the performance of its official duties; but an action in the nature of mandamus shall lie from the district court to the commission in all proper cases.

(5) All actions for review shall be commenced and tried in the district court in and for the county in which the petitioner resides, or if a corporation or partnership in the county in which it maintains its principal office or place of business, or in the district court of the city and county of Denver, at the option of the petitioner. Appellate review may be obtained in the supreme court concerning any final judgment of the district court on review, affirming, setting aside, or modifying any decision of the commission, in the same manner and with the same effect as appellate review of judgments of the district court in other civil actions.

Source: L. 13: p. 497, § 52. C.L. § 2961. CSA: C. 137, § 52. L. 45: p. 531, § 8. CRS 53: § 115-6-15. C.R.S. 1963: § 115-6-15. L. 69: p. 949, § 47. L. 75: (1) and (4) amended, p. 227, § 90, effective July 16. L. 89: (4) amended, p. 1532, § 17, effective April 12. L. 92: (1) amended, p. 2131, § 3, effective July 1. L. 93: (1) amended, p. 2065, § 21, effective July 1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 94 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: Associated Governments of Nw. Colorado v. Colorado Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 275 P.3d 646 (Colo. 2012).
Associated Governments of Nw. Colorado v. Colorado Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 275 P.3d 646 (Colo. 2012). · cites it 295× “¶ 2 The Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado (AGNC) timely petitioned the Routt County District Court, in two cases, for a writ of certiorari or judicial review pursuant to section 40-6-115, C.R.S. (2011). AGNC wished to challenge orders of the Public Utilities…”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of the Cnty. of San Miguel v. Colorado Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 157 P.3d 1083 (Colo. 2007). · cites it 86× “A party may appeal the final written decision or order to the district court pursuant to section 40-6-115. In the case before us, the district court held that the advisory staff's memoranda must always be included in the records of PUC's proceedings, under section 40-6-113(6).”
Trans Shuttle, Inc. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 58 P.3d 47 (Colo. 2002). · cites it 43× “106, was jurisdictional *48 ly deficient because it did not comply with section 40-6-115, 11 C.R.S. (2002), the exclusive remedy provided for seeking such review.”
Silver Eagle Servs., Inc. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 768 P.2d 208 (Colo. 1989). · cites it 67× “In its complaint for judicial review, Mesa Cab invoked the jurisdiction of the district court pursuant to section 40-6-115 of the Public Utilities Law, which outlines the statutory procedures for judicial review of the PUC decision, and also pursuant to C.”
Romer v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 956 P.2d 566 (Colo. 1998). · cites it 24× “On certiorari to this Court, we upheld the district court's decision on standing, reasoning that " section 40-6-115(1), when read in conjunction with section 24-4-106(4), confers statutory authority for the county to seek review.”
Mile High Cab, Inc. v. Colorado Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 302 P.3d 241 (Colo. 2013). · cites it 10× “17 On judicial review pursuant to section 40-6-115, C.R.S. (2012), the district court affirmed, finding that the Commission regularly pursued its authority; that the Commission's decision to deny Mile High a certificate was just and reasonable; that the Commission's conclusions…”
City of Montrose v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 732 P.2d 1181 (Colo. 1987). · cites it 19× “This is an appeal by the City of Montrose from a judgment of the District Court for *1184 Montrose County upholding a decision of the Public Utilities Commission on certiora-ri review under section 40-6-115, 17 C.R.S. (1984). The Public Utilities Commission (Commission) entered…”
Pub. Serv. Co. of Colorado v. Van Wyk, 27 P.3d 377 (Colo. 2001). · cites it 4× “[2] Our jurisdiction to review district court decisions regarding PUC determinations comes from section 40-6-115(5), 11 C.R.S. (2000), which provides that the district court may review PUC decisions, and that appeal from such district court review is to be sought directly from…”
Douglas Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 829 P.2d 1303 (Colo. 1992). · cites it 14× “The district court found that Douglas County had statutory standing pursuant to section 40-6-115(1), 17 C.R.S. (1984), because it was a party to the proceeding before the PUC, and pursuant to the test set forth in Wimberly v.”
Peoples Nat. Gas Div. of N. Nat. Gas Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 626 P.2d 159 (Colo. 1981). · cites it 15× “, a party may “apply to the district court for a writ of certiorari or review for the purpose of having the lawfulness of the final decision inquired into and determined.” Section 40-6-115(1), C.R.S.”
Colorado-Ute Elec. Ass'n v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 760 P.2d 627 (Colo. 1988). · cites it 12× “As noted above, section 40-6-115(2) and (3) limits the district court to a narrow scope of review.”
Trans Shuttle, Inc. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 89 P.3d 398 (Colo. 2004). · cites it 11× “Standard of Review Judicial review of a PUC decision is governed by section 40-6-115. Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 40-6-115(1) — 27 cases
Associated Governments of Nw. Colorado v. Colorado Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 275 P.3d 646 (Colo. 2012). “¶ 2 The Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado (AGNC) timely petitioned the Routt County District Court, in two cases, for a writ of certiorari or judicial review pursuant to section 40-6-115, C.R.S. (2011). AGNC wished to challenge orders of the Public Utilities…”
Romer v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 956 P.2d 566 (Colo. 1998). “On certiorari to this Court, we upheld the district court's decision on standing, reasoning that " section 40-6-115(1), when read in conjunction with section 24-4-106(4), confers statutory authority for the county to seek review.”
Douglas Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 829 P.2d 1303 (Colo. 1992). “The district court found that Douglas County had statutory standing pursuant to section 40-6-115(1), 17 C.R.S. (1984), because it was a party to the proceeding before the PUC, and pursuant to the test set forth in Wimberly v.”
Peoples Nat. Gas Div. of N. Nat. Gas Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 626 P.2d 159 (Colo. 1981). “, a party may “apply to the district court for a writ of certiorari or review for the purpose of having the lawfulness of the final decision inquired into and determined.” Section 40-6-115(1), C.R.S.”
Archibold v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 58 P.3d 1031 (Colo. 2002).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 40-6-115(2) — 23 cases
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of the Cnty. of San Miguel v. Colorado Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 157 P.3d 1083 (Colo. 2007). “A party may appeal the final written decision or order to the district court pursuant to section 40-6-115. In the case before us, the district court held that the advisory staff's memoranda must always be included in the records of PUC's proceedings, under section 40-6-113(6).”
Associated Governments of Nw. Colorado v. Colorado Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 275 P.3d 646 (Colo. 2012). “¶ 2 The Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado (AGNC) timely petitioned the Routt County District Court, in two cases, for a writ of certiorari or judicial review pursuant to section 40-6-115, C.R.S. (2011). AGNC wished to challenge orders of the Public Utilities…”
Colorado-Ute Elec. Ass'n v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 760 P.2d 627 (Colo. 1988). “As noted above, section 40-6-115(2) and (3) limits the district court to a narrow scope of review.”
Trans Shuttle, Inc. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 89 P.3d 398 (Colo. 2004). “Standard of Review Judicial review of a PUC decision is governed by section 40-6-115. Pub. Serv. Co. of Colo.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 40-6-115(3) — 45 cases
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of the Cnty. of San Miguel v. Colorado Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 157 P.3d 1083 (Colo. 2007). “A party may appeal the final written decision or order to the district court pursuant to section 40-6-115. In the case before us, the district court held that the advisory staff's memoranda must always be included in the records of PUC's proceedings, under section 40-6-113(6).”
City of Montrose v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 732 P.2d 1181 (Colo. 1987). “This is an appeal by the City of Montrose from a judgment of the District Court for *1184 Montrose County upholding a decision of the Public Utilities Commission on certiora-ri review under section 40-6-115, 17 C.R.S. (1984). The Public Utilities Commission (Commission) entered…”
Colorado-Ute Elec. Ass'n v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 760 P.2d 627 (Colo. 1988). “As noted above, section 40-6-115(2) and (3) limits the district court to a narrow scope of review.”
Ace West Trucking, Inc. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 788 P.2d 755 (Colo. 1990).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 40-6-115(4) — 6 cases
Associated Governments of Nw. Colorado v. Colorado Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 275 P.3d 646 (Colo. 2012). “¶ 2 The Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado (AGNC) timely petitioned the Routt County District Court, in two cases, for a writ of certiorari or judicial review pursuant to section 40-6-115, C.R.S. (2011). AGNC wished to challenge orders of the Public Utilities…”
Peoples Nat. Gas Div. of N. Nat. Gas Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 626 P.2d 159 (Colo. 1981). “, a party may “apply to the district court for a writ of certiorari or review for the purpose of having the lawfulness of the final decision inquired into and determined.” Section 40-6-115(1), C.R.S.”
Silver Eagle Servs., Inc. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 768 P.2d 208 (Colo. 1989). “In its complaint for judicial review, Mesa Cab invoked the jurisdiction of the district court pursuant to section 40-6-115 of the Public Utilities Law, which outlines the statutory procedures for judicial review of the PUC decision, and also pursuant to C.”
Trans Shuttle, Inc. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 58 P.3d 47 (Colo. 2002). “106, was jurisdictional *48 ly deficient because it did not comply with section 40-6-115, 11 C.R.S. (2002), the exclusive remedy provided for seeking such review.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 40-6-115(5) — 50 cases
Associated Governments of Nw. Colorado v. Colorado Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 275 P.3d 646 (Colo. 2012). “¶ 2 The Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado (AGNC) timely petitioned the Routt County District Court, in two cases, for a writ of certiorari or judicial review pursuant to section 40-6-115, C.R.S. (2011). AGNC wished to challenge orders of the Public Utilities…”
Pub. Serv. Co. of Colorado v. Van Wyk, 27 P.3d 377 (Colo. 2001). “[2] Our jurisdiction to review district court decisions regarding PUC determinations comes from section 40-6-115(5), 11 C.R.S. (2000), which provides that the district court may review PUC decisions, and that appeal from such district court review is to be sought directly from…”
Mile High Cab, Inc. v. Colorado Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 302 P.3d 241 (Colo. 2013). “17 On judicial review pursuant to section 40-6-115, C.R.S. (2012), the district court affirmed, finding that the Commission regularly pursued its authority; that the Commission's decision to deny Mile High a certificate was just and reasonable; that the Commission's conclusions…”
AviComm, Inc. v. Colorado Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 955 P.2d 1023 (Colo. 1998).
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 40-6-115(8) — 9 cases
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of the Cnty. of San Miguel v. Colorado Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 157 P.3d 1083 (Colo. 2007). “A party may appeal the final written decision or order to the district court pursuant to section 40-6-115. In the case before us, the district court held that the advisory staff's memoranda must always be included in the records of PUC's proceedings, under section 40-6-113(6).”
Associated Governments of Nw. Colorado v. Colorado Pub. Utils. Comm'n, 275 P.3d 646 (Colo. 2012). “¶ 2 The Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado (AGNC) timely petitioned the Routt County District Court, in two cases, for a writ of certiorari or judicial review pursuant to section 40-6-115, C.R.S. (2011). AGNC wished to challenge orders of the Public Utilities…”
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.