Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 6
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-4-101 (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

The short title of this article 4 is the "Colorado State Antitrust Act of 2023".

Source: L. 2023: Entire article R&RE, (HB 23-1192), ch. 427, p. 2509, § 2, effective June 7.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 6-4-101 as it existed prior to 2023.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: People Ex Rel. Woodard v. Colorado Springs Bd. of Realtors, Inc., 692 P.2d 1055 (Colo. 1984).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People Ex Rel. Woodard v. Colorado Springs Bd. of Realtors, Inc., 692 P.2d 1055 (Colo. 1984). · cites it 35× “50, we granted certio-rari to review the trial court’s judgment after a trial to the court concluding that certain membership practices of the Colorado Springs Board of Realtors (the Board) constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of section 6-4-101, 2 C.R.S.…”
Colorado Springs Bd. of Realtors, Inc. v. State, 780 P.2d 494 (Colo. 1989). · cites it 19× “1 In CSBR I we reversed the trial court’s initial judgment, concluding that certain of the Board’s membership practices constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of section 6-4-101, 2 C.R.S. (1984 Supp.). 2 We then remanded the case to the trial court for the…”
People v. North Avenue Furniture & Appliance, Inc., 645 P.2d 1291 (Colo. 1982). · cites it 12× “The People appeal from an order dismissing an indictment charging the defendants with price-fixing in violation of section 6-4-101, C.R.S.1973 (1981 Supp.), the Colorado Antitrust Statute.”
Four Corners Nephrology Assocs., P.C. v. Mercy Med. Ctr. of Durango, 464 F. Supp. 2d 1095 (D. Colo. 2006). · cites it 6× “§ 2 ; monopolization and attempt to monopolize in violation of the' Colorado Antitrust Act, C.R.S. §§ 6-4-101 through 122; illegal conspiracies and exclusionary practices in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.”
United States v. Excellair, Inc., 637 F. Supp. 1377 (D. Colo. 1986). · cites it 9× “This count contends that to enhance the profitability of ITR’s commuter airlines division, Kondur, through ITR, and Moore conspired to force the cessation of Excel-lair’s business, in violation of Colorado’s anti-trust provisions, Colo.Rev.Stat. § 6-4-101 et seq. (1973). These…”
TV Commc'ns Network, Inc. v. ESPN, Inc., 767 F. Supp. 1062 (D. Colo. 1991). · cites it 2× “STATE LAW VIOLATIONS BY ALL DEFENDANTS Plaintiffs thirteenth and fourteenth causes of action allege violations of Colo.Rev.Stat.Ann. §§ 6-2-101 through 6-2-117 (Bradford 1974 and Supp.”
Smalley & Co. v. Emerson & Cuming, Inc., 808 F. Supp. 1503 (D. Colo. 1992). · cites it 4× “Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint also includes several other claims for relief: breach of contract, promissory estoppel, tortious interference with prospective contract, and violation of the Colorado Restraint of Trade and Commerce Act, Colo.Rev.Stat. §§ 6-4-101 to 108 (1973 & Supp.”
Arapahoe Surgery Ctr., LLC v. Cigna Healthcare, Inc., 171 F. Supp. 3d 1092 (D. Colo. 2016). · cites it 2× “, and the Colorado Antitrust Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 6-4-101 et seq.; and state law claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.”
Frontier Airlines, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc., 758 F. Supp. 1399 (D. Colo. 1989). · cites it 2× “Frontier brings eight claims for relief against both defendants, which it categorizes in four groups: (1) common law breach of contract, (2) violations of the Colorado Antitrust statute, Colo.Rev.Stat. § 6-4-101, et seq., (3) violations of the Colorado Unfair Practices Act, Colo.”
Reed Mill & Lumber Co., Inc. v. Jensen, 165 P.3d 733 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “In his counterclaims, Jensen alleged, among other things, that the noncompete agreement (1) was void ab initio, in part because it violated § 8-2-113(2)(a); (2) violated the Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992, § 6-4-101, et seq., C.R.S. 2006, and that, as a consequence of the…”
Mem'l Gardens, Inc. v. Olympian Sales & Mgmt. Consultants, Inc., 690 P.2d 207 (Colo. 1984). “§ 6-4-101, 2 C.R.S. (1973 & 1983 Supp.). 3 .”
Stifflear v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 931 P.2d 471 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “Section 6-4-101 of the 1957 Act contains the “illegal restraint of trade” proscription and states: Every contract or combination in the nature of a trust or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce is declared illegal.”
Show all 28 citing cases →
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.