Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 6

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-4-106

Bid-rigging

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

(1) It is illegal for any person to contract, combine, or conspire with any person to rig any bid, or any aspect of the bidding process, in any way related to the provision of any commodity or service. (2) For purposes of this section, each separate instance of bid-rigging constitutes a separate violation of this section, regardless of whether a single conspiracy is found to exist encompassing more than one such violation.

Source: L. 2023: Entire article R&RE, (HB 23-1192), ch. 427, p. 2511, § 2, effective June 7.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 6-4-106 as it existed prior to 2023.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1975–2018 · leading case: Amos v. Aspen Alps 123, LLC
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Amos v. Aspen Alps 123, LLC (2012) colo · cites it 13× “12 We also examine whether the principals of Aspen Alps 128, LLC (Aspen Alps) engaged in bid rigging in violation of the Colorado Antitrust Act, section 6-4-106, C.R.S. (2011). We determine that the limited record before us fails to establish bid rigging and, therefore, we…”
Frontier Airlines, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc. (1989) cod · cites it 4× “In its third claim, Frontier seeks a declaration that its contracts with United are void as a matter of public policy pursuant to Colo.Rev.Stat. § 6-4-106. Kent’s affidavit on his lack of involvement in the negotiation, execution, or implementation of United’s contracts with…”
Amos v. Aspen Alps 123, LLC (2010) coloctapp · cites it 6× “Bid Rigging Amos next contends the three bidders at the foreclosure sale engaged in bid rigging contrary to section 6-4-106 of the Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992(Act), §§ 6-4-101 to - 122, C.”
California v. ARC America Corp. (1989) scotus “Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-4-106 (Supp. 1988); D.”
In Re Wiring Device Antitrust Litigation (1980) nyed “There is no precedent for the extraordinary penalty Robinette claims that the South Carolina statute imposes. Five other states have enacted statutes which permit the recovery of the full purchase price of goods sold in connection with antitrust violations.”
Branta, LLC v. Newfield Prod. Co. (2018) cod · cites it 2× “" Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-4-106 (1). 42. Courts look to federal antitrust cases to guide interpretation of the Colorado Antitrust Act.”
City of Colorado Springs v. Mountain View Electric Ass'n (1996) coloctapp “142, § 6-4-106 at 370-71 provided: All contracts or agreements made by any person, firm, corporation, or association while a member of any combination, conspiracy, trust, or pool prohibited under this *1386 article which are founded upon, or are the result of, or grow out of, or…”
Q-T Markets, Inc. v. Fleming Companies, Inc. (1975) cod · cites it 2× “(C.R.S. § 6-4-106 (1973)). It is difficult to determine whether this statute has any applicability in this case.”
California v. Arc America Corp. (1989) scotus “Colo. Rev. Stat. §6-4-106 (Supp. 1988); D.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-4-106(1) — 2 cases
Amos v. Aspen Alps 123, LLC (2012) colo “12 We also examine whether the principals of Aspen Alps 128, LLC (Aspen Alps) engaged in bid rigging in violation of the Colorado Antitrust Act, section 6-4-106, C.R.S. (2011). We determine that the limited record before us fails to establish bid rigging and, therefore, we…”
Amos v. Aspen Alps 123, LLC (2010) coloctapp “Bid Rigging Amos next contends the three bidders at the foreclosure sale engaged in bid rigging contrary to section 6-4-106 of the Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992(Act), §§ 6-4-101 to - 122, C.”
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.