Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 42
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 42-9-101 (2026)

Short title

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

This article shall be known and may be cited as the "Motor Vehicle Repair Act of 1977".

Source: L. 94: Entire title amended with relocations, p. 2500, § 1, effective January 1, 1995.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 42-11-101 as it existed prior to 1994.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: Huydts v. Dixon, 606 P.2d 1303 (Colo. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Huydts v. Dixon, 606 P.2d 1303 (Colo. 1980). · cites it 6× “At issue in this appeal is the constitutionality of the guest statute, section 42-9-101, C.R.S. 1973, and the question of whether an issue of fact precluded the trial judge from granting summary judgment, pursuant to C.”
Malan v. Lewis, 693 P.2d 661 (Utah 1984). · cites it 2× “115 (1953) (amended in 1979 so as to repeal automobile guest statute); S.”
Mince v. Butters, 616 P.2d 127 (Colo. 1980). · cites it 3× “Butters argues that since his tendered instruction would have been appropriate for a jury determination of liability under the previously existing guest statute, section 42-9-101, C.R.S. 1973 (repealed Colo.”
Bushnell v. Sapp, 571 P.2d 1100 (Colo. 1977). · cites it 3× “4 The Guest Statute, section 42-9-101, C.R.S. 1973, was subsequently repealed, effective April 9, 1975.”
Peterson v. Grattan, 578 P.2d 1063 (Colo. 1978). · cites it 6× “2d 1001 (1976), held that plaintiff was a guest within the meaning of the guest statute, section 42-9-101, C.R.S. 1973, and that no evidence was presented at trial sufficient to warrant submission of the case to the jury to decide whether or not defendant’s conduct had been…”
Price v. Sommermeyer, 584 P.2d 1220 (Colo. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “1963, 13-9-1 (§ 42-9-101, C.R.S.1973, repealed April 9, 1975) bars plaintiffs' recovery.”
Jones v. Stevinson's Golden Ford, 36 P.3d 129 (Colo. Ct. App. 2001). “The trial court instructed the jury that employer's actions could constitute an illegal act under the Motor Vehicle Repair Act, § 42-9-101, et seq., C.R.8.2000, or the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, § 6-1-101, et seq.”
People v. Jamrozek, 914 P.2d 350 (Colo. 1996). “He enclosed a copy of the Colorado Motor Vehicle Repair Act of 1977, now codified at sections 42-9-101 to 42-9-108,17 C.R.S. (1995 Supp.”
Marrou Concrete v. KLR Ent (Colo. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 2× “Beem, Denver, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellants ¶1 Colorado’s Motor Vehicle Repair Act (MVRA), §§ 42-9-101 to - 113, C.R.S. 2024, requires that a customer seeking to enforce the MVRA in a civil action first “make written demand for the customer’s damages” from the motor…”
Sanchez v. Rains Precision Motorsports, Inc., 2025 COA 40 (Colo. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “— Vehicles and Traffic — Motor Vehicle Repair Act of 1977 — Repairs on a Motor Vehicle A division of the court of appeals addresses, for the first time in a published decision by a Colorado appellate court, issues pertaining to the construction and application of Colorado’s…”
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.