28 U.S.C. § 85
Colorado
Colorado constitutes one judicial district.
Court shall be held at Boulder, Colorado Springs, Denver, Durango, Grand Junction, Montrose, Pueblo, and Sterling.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1957–2025 · leading case: Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States
Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States (1976)
“28 U. S. C. § 85 . Third, the Government's willingness to participate in some of the state proceedings certainly does not mean that it had no right to bring this action, unless the Court has today unearthed a new kind of waiver.”
Four Corners Nephrology Associates, P.C. v. Mercy Medical Center of Durango (2006)
“1 See 28 U.S.C. § 85 (“Colorado constitutes one judicial district.”
Abell v. Sothen (2007)
“The state of Colorado composes a single federal judicial district, created by 28 U.S.C. § 85 . The plaintiffs’ argument that they do not reside in a United States judicial district is frivolous.”
James Robert Palmer v. United States (1957)
“The State of Colorado is but a single judicial district, 28 U.S.C.A. § 85 . Petitioner further asserts he was denied due process because he was arraigned before one judge and tried before another.”
Rollins v. Ingersoll-Rand Co. (2007)
“”); 28 U.S.C. § 85 (“Colorado constitutes one judicial district.”
Jim Navarro v. Robert Wilkie (2020)
“See 28 U.S.C. § 85 (“Colorado constitutes 18 one judicial district.”
Young v. United States (2019)
“1 at 1-2; 28 U.S.C. § 85 (“Colorado 20 constitutes one judicial district.”
Strege v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration (2020)
“28 U.S.C. § 85 ; 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g). To correct this defect in venue, the Court looks to 28 U.”
Cook v. No Named (2022)
“gov/inmateloc/; 28 U.S.C. § 85 (“Colorado constitutes one judicial district”).”
Larsen (PS) v. Wellness Path Medical (2023)
“” 28 U.S.C. § 85 . And there does not appear to be any reason why Larsen could not have brought this action in the District of Colorado, which is also the appropriate venue for this case if it is what it purports to be—a challenge to the legality of Larsen’s confinement under §…”
San Juan Associates, Outdoor World, LLLP v. Depositors Insurance Company (2024)
“” 28 U.S.C.S. § 85 . The party seeking an intradistrict transfer has the burden of proving that the existing forum is inconvenient.”
Strege v. Commissioner of Social Security (2020)
“28 U.S.C. § 85 ; 42 U.S.C. § 405 (g). To correct this defect in venue, the Court looks to 28 U.”
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.