Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 6

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-2-102

Legislative declaration

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The general assembly declares that the purpose of this article is to safeguard the public against the creation or perpetuation of monopolies and to foster and encourage competition by prohibiting unfair and discriminatory practices by which fair and honest competition is destroyed or prevented. This article shall be liberally construed so that its beneficial purposes may be subserved. Source: L. 41: p. 824, § 12. CSA: C. 48, § 302(12). L. 49: p. 349, § 16. CRS 53: § 55-2- 16. C.R.S. 1963: § 55-2-16.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1990–2013 · leading case: Dunlap v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, Inc.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dunlap v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, Inc. (1992) colo · cites it 4× “§ 6-2-102. The Unfair Practices Act was thus enacted primarily to protect the public and encourage competition.”
Dunlap v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, Inc. (1992) coloctapp · cites it 2× “2), states that “the purpose of this article is to safeguard the public against the creation or perpetuation of monopolies and to foster and encourage competition by prohibiting unfair and discriminatory trade practices by which fair and honest competition is destroyed or…”
Western Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Suncor Energy (U.S.A.) Inc. (2013) cod · cites it 2× “First, without necessarily addressing the assumption that the statute is “criminal” in nature and thus subject to strict construction, the Court notes that C.R.S. § 6-2-102 expressly provides that the entire Unfair Trade Practices Act “shall be liberally construed so that its…”
Dunlap v. Colorado Springs Cablevision, Inc. (1990) coloctapp · cites it 2× “Consequently, the plaintiffs sought treble damages under the Act measured by the difference between the rates they were charged and the rates charged to competitive-area residents.”
Venta, Inc. v. Frontier Oil and Refining Co. (1993) cod · cites it 2× “C.R.S. § 6-2-102. 3 . Price favoritism of the sort alleged by Plaintiffs is unlawful under Robinson-Patman.”
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.