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

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-4-114 (2024)

Enforcement - injunction

✓ 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

(1) Any person injured, either directly or indirectly, in its business or property by reason of a violation of this article 4 may file an action to prevent or restrain the violation.

(2) In any action brought pursuant to this section, the court, in its discretion, may award the prevailing party its expert witness fees, the costs of the action, and reasonable attorney fees.

Source: L. 2023: Entire article R&RE, (HB 23-1192), ch. 427, p. 2516, § 2, effective June 7.

Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 6-4-113 as it existed prior to 2023.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1993–2012 · leading case: Pomerantz v. Microsoft Corp., 50 P.3d 929 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pomerantz v. Microsoft Corp., 50 P.3d 929 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 8× “Pomerantz and Papish sought damages for the difference between the monopoly price of Windows 98 and the price for which Windows 98 could have been sold in a competitive market; treble damages pursuant to § 6-4-114, C.”
McCormick v. Bradley, 870 P.2d 599 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 9× “We affirm and remand for consideration of defendants’ claim for attorney fees pursuant to § 6-4-114(2), C.R.S. (1992 Repl. Vol. 2).”
Amos v. Aspen Alps 123, LLC, 2012 CO 46, 280 P.3d 1256. · cites it 2× “See § 6-4-114, C.RS. (2011) 8 Here, the trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint a third time to include a claim for bid rigging.”
Reed Mill & Lumber Co. v. Jensen, 165 P.3d 733 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “2006, and that, as a consequence of the violation, he was entitled to attorney fees under § 6-4-114(2), C.R.S. 2006; and (3) was a wrongful interference with his future business expectations.”
Stifflear v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 931 P.2d 471 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “In 1992, the General Assembly also amended the damages provision previously contained in § 6-4-108 of the 1957 Act by providing in § 6-4-114(1), C.R.S. (1992 Repl.Vol. 2), as follows: Any person injured in its business or property by reason of any violation of this article may…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-4-114(1): 2 cases
Pomerantz v. Microsoft Corp., 50 P.3d 929 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002). “Pomerantz and Papish sought damages for the difference between the monopoly price of Windows 98 and the price for which Windows 98 could have been sold in a competitive market; treble damages pursuant to § 6-4-114, C.”
Stifflear v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 931 P.2d 471 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). “In 1992, the General Assembly also amended the damages provision previously contained in § 6-4-108 of the 1957 Act by providing in § 6-4-114(1), C.R.S. (1992 Repl.Vol. 2), as follows: Any person injured in its business or property by reason of any violation of this article may…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 6-4-114(2): 2 cases
McCormick v. Bradley, 870 P.2d 599 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993). “We affirm and remand for consideration of defendants’ claim for attorney fees pursuant to § 6-4-114(2), C.R.S. (1992 Repl. Vol. 2).”
Reed Mill & Lumber Co. v. Jensen, 165 P.3d 733 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007). “2006, and that, as a consequence of the violation, he was entitled to attorney fees under § 6-4-114(2), C.R.S. 2006; and (3) was a wrongful interference with his future business expectations.”
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.