Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 43
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 43-5-301 (2024)

Obstructing highway - penalty

✓ 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

No person or corporation shall erect any fence, house, or other structure or dig pits or holes in or upon any highway, or place thereon or cause or allow to be placed thereon any stones, timber, or trees or any obstruction whatsoever. No person or corporation shall tear down, burn, or otherwise damage any bridge of any highway, or cause wastewater or the water from any ditch, road, drain, flume, agricultural crop sprinkler system, or other source to flow or fall upon any road or highway so as to damage the same or to cause a hazard to vehicular traffic. Any person or corporation so offending commits a civil infraction and shall also be liable to any person, unit of government, or corporation in a civil action for any damages resulting therefrom.

Source: L. 1883: p. 261, § 36. G.S. § 2988. L. 1885: p. 325, § 1. R.S. 08: § 5826. C.L. § 1280. CSA: C. 143, § 34. CRS 53: § 120-4-1. C.R.S. 1963: § 120-4-1. L. 81: Entire section amended, p. 1775, § 2, effective July 1. L. 2021: Entire section amended, (SB 21-271), ch. 462, p. 3326, § 780, effective March 1, 2022.

Cross references: For damaging road, ditch, or flume, see § 7-42-109; for the penalty for cutting or breaking ditch or flume, see § 37-89-101; for obstructing highway or other passageway, see § 18-9-107; for the penalty for a civil infraction, see § 18-1.3-503.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1998–2008 · leading case: Bd. of Cty. Com. Cty. of Logan v. Vandemoer, 205 P.3d 423 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bd. of Cty. Com. Cty. of Logan v. Vandemoer, 205 P.3d 423 (Colo. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4× “In its complaint, the board alleged three grounds for its request for injunctive relief: violation of a county resolution prohibiting agricultural sprinkler irrigation systems from being moved across public roads; creation of a public nuisance in violation of the board’s…”
Graham v. State ex rel. Univ. of N. Colorado, 956 P.2d 556 (Colo. 1998). · cites it 2× “Zahour-ek argued that the court had failed to under *560 stand — or appreciate that he had made — a just compensation/inverse condemnation argument; that unlawful obstruction of a public highway violated section 43-5-301, 12 C.R.S. (1997), and therefore was not a tort; that…”
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.