Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 8-1-128 (2026)

Petition - writ - dissolution

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The director of the division, as petitioner, may file in the district court of the city and county of Denver, or of any county in which the place of employment or any part thereof is situated, a verified petition against any employers or employees, or both, as respondents, and setting forth any violation or threatened or attempted violation of any provisions of section 8-1-125 or 8-1-126, and, thereupon, without bond and without notice, the district court shall issue its mandatory writ enjoining the alleged violations, or attempted or threatened violations of this article, and ordering and requiring the respondents to maintain all the conditions of employment in status quo and without change until after the dispute or controversy has been investigated and heard by the director and the final findings, decision, order, or award of the director made and entered. Any respondent may move the court to dissolve the mandatory writ as to that respondent, and, upon at least five days' notice to the director, the motion shall be set down for hearing, but the mandatory writ shall not be dissolved without proof of full compliance by the respondent with all the provisions of this article and orders of the director and that the continuance in effect of the mandatory writ is causing or will cause the respondent great and irreparable injury. The court may require such security of the respondent as the court determines adequate to enforce obedience to the provisions of this article on the part of the respondent before the mandatory writ is dissolved.

Source: L. 15: p. 579, § 32. L. 21: p. 841, § 13. C.L. § 4356. CSA: C. 97, § 34. L. 41: p. 532, § 2. CRS 53: § 80-1-32. C.R.S. 1963: § 80-1-32. L. 69: p. 584, § 46. L. 72: p. 605, § 109. L. 2016: Entire section amended, (HB 16-1323), ch. 131, p. 376, § 4, effective August 10.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1992–1996 · leading case: Martin v. Montezuma-Cortez Sch. Dist. Re-1, 841 P.2d 237 (Colo. 1992).
Martin v. Montezuma-Cortez Sch. Dist. Re-1, 841 P.2d 237 (Colo. 1992). · cites it 5× “Under section 8-1-128, the director has the power of the district court at his disposal, which court may enjoin any verified violation of the Industrial Relations Act by employers and employees alike.”
Denver Classroom Teachers Ass'n v. Sch. Dist. No. 1, 921 P.2d 70 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 7× “*73 II The school district next contends that the association’s sole remedy for the school district’s violation of the director’s order was to petition for injunctive relief under § 8-1-128, C.R.S. (1986 RepLVoL 3B) and that, therefore, the trial court erred in allowing the…”
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.