reglab/housing_qa huggingface dataset:
CO Code § 13-45-119 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure|Article 45 - Habeas Corpus - General Provisions|§ 13-45-119. Writ to Testify or Be Surrendered - Run to Any County - Copy - Fees

 The supreme and district courts within this state have power to issue writs of habeas corpus to bring the body of any person confined in any jail before them to testify or to be surrendered in discharge of bail. When a writ of habeas corpus is issued to bring into court any person to testify, or the principal to be surrendered in discharge of bail and such principal or witness is confined in any jail in this state out of the county in which such principal or witness is required to be surrendered or to testify, the writ may run into any county in this state and there be executed and returned by any officer to whom it is directed. The principal, after being surrendered or his bail discharged, or a person testifying as aforesaid shall be returned by the officer executing such writ by virtue of an order of the court for the purpose aforesaid, an attested copy of which, lodged with the jailer, exonerates such jailer of liability for an escape. The party praying out such writ of habeas corpus shall pay to the officer executing the same a reasonable sum for his services as adjudged by the courts respectively.   History. Source: R.S. P. 358, § 19. G.L. § 1341. G.S. § 1627. R.S. 08: § 2937. C.L. § 6505. CSA: C. 77, § 20. CRS 53: § 65-1-19. C.R.S. 1963: § 65-1-19. History. Source: R.S. P. 358, § 19. G.L. § 1341. G.S. § 1627. R.S. 08: § 2937. C.L. § 6505. CSA: C. 77, § 20. CRS 53: § 65-1-19. C.R.S. 1963: § 65-1-19.
CO Code § 13-50-103 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure|Article 50 - Joint Rights and Obligations|§ 13-50-103. Liability of Remaining Debtor

 In case one or more joint debtors are released, no one of the remaining debtors shall be liable for more than his proportionate share of the indebtedness, unless he is the principal debtor and the debtor released was his surety, in which case the principal debtor is liable for the whole of the remainder of the indebtedness.   History. Source: L. 1899: P. 239, § 2. R.S. 08: § 3606. C.L. § 5126. CSA: C. 92, § 6. CRS 53: § 76-1-3. C.R.S. 1963: § 76-1-3. History. Source: L. 1899: P. 239, § 2. R.S. 08: § 3606. C.L. § 5126. CSA: C. 92, § 6. CRS 53: § 76-1-3. C.R.S. 1963: § 76-1-3.    ANNOTATION   Release abrogates section's applicability. This section and §§ 13-50-101 and 13-50-102 did not apply where the defendant guarantors expressly agreed that the release of coguarantors would not affect defendants' liability in any way. United States v. Immordino, 386 F. Supp. 611 (D. Colo. 1974 ), aff'd, 534 F.2d 1378 (10th Cir. 1976).   Remaining debtors are only liable for their proportionate share. A release of one or more joint debtors is held to be payment on the indebtedness of the full proportionate share of such debtor or debtors and further that none of the remaining debtors shall be liable for more than his proportionate share of indebtedness. Hosler v. Ireland, 219 F. 489 (8th Cir. 1915).   Release executed by plaintiff in favor of co-obligors reduces defendant's liability. Smith v. Weindrop, 833 P.2d 856 (Colo. App. 1992).   Release of some joint debtors extinguishes the obligation of any remaining joint debtors to pay so much of the debt as was deemed paid by the released joint debtors. Smith v. Weindrop, 833 P.2d 856 (Colo. App. 1992).   Where release of one of the debtors from liability in promissory note included liability for attorney fees, other debtors are each liable for their proportionate share of any liability for fees. A. Tenenbaum & Co., Inc. v. Colantuno, 3 P.3d 456 (Colo. App. 1999), aff'd, 23 P.3d 708 (Colo. 2001).   Proportionate shares should be determined by dividing the debt equally, per capita, among promissory note judgment debtors who were jointly liable for attorney fees prior to release of one of the debtors and, if a debtor pays more than his percentage share to satisfy the attorney fee indebtedness, the debtor may file an action for contribution against the other debtors. A. Tenenbaum & Co., Inc. v. Colantuno, 3 P.3d 456 (Colo. App. 1999), aff'd, 23 P.3d 708 (Colo. 2001).   Court erred in reducing doctor's liability to account for fault apportioned to the nurses by the jury. In light of “captain of the ship” doctrine, no evidence exists to qualify doctor and nurses as joint debtors. Ochoa v. Vered, 212 P.3d 963 (Colo. App. 2009).
CO Code § 13-50-104 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure|Article 50 - Joint Rights and Obligations|§ 13-50-104. Right of Surety

 Nothing in sections 13-50-102 to 13-50-104 affects or changes the right of a surety who has paid his proportionate share of an indebtedness of recovering the same from his principal debtor.   History. Source: L. 1899: P. 239, § 3. R.S. 08: § 3607. C.L. § 5127. CSA: C. 92, § 7. CRS 53: § 76-1-4. C.R.S. 1963: § 76-1-4. History. Source: L. 1899: P. 239, § 3. R.S. 08: § 3607. C.L. § 5127. CSA: C. 92, § 7. CRS 53: § 76-1-4. C.R.S. 1963: § 76-1-4.
CO Code § 13-50.5-101 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure|Article 50.5 - Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors|§ 13-50.5-101. Short Title

 This article shall be known and may be cited as the “Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act”.   History. Source: L. 77: Entire article added, p. 808, § 1, effective July 1.    ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, “Immunity to Direct Action: Is it a Defense to a Contribution Claim?”, see 52 U. Colo. L. Rev. 151 (1980). For article, “Conflicts in Settlement of Personal Injury Cases”, see 11 Colo. Law. 399 (1982). For article, “Application of Comparative Negligence and Contribution Statutes to Third-Party Defendants”, see 13 Colo. Law. 626 (1984). For article, “Set-Off Under the Contribution and Collateral Source Statutes”, see 21 Colo. Law. 1421 (1992).   Traditional theories of loss allocation in tort altered. The general assembly has altered traditional theories of loss allocation in tort with the passage of this act and with the introduction of a comparative negligence scheme into Colorado law, § 13-21-111 . Pub. Serv. Co. v. District Court, 638 P.2d 772 (Colo. 1981).   Act remedies harsh common-law rule. This act is designed to remedy a harsh common-law rule. Changing rules of tort liability have expanded the number of parties who can be considered joint tortfeasors, while the rule of joint and several liability left the plaintiff with control over who would ultimately bear the losses. The contribution act remedied this situation by permitting the shifting of losses equitably among those tortfeasors who caused the damages. Nat'l Farmers Union Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Frackelton, 662 P.2d 1056 (Colo. 1983).   Employer covered under workmen's compensation not liable for contribution. Because the workmen's compensation act immunizes an employer from tort liability to a covered employee, the employer is not “jointly liable in tort” and therefore contribution is barred. Hammond v. Kolberg Mfg. Corp., 542 F. Supp. 662 (D. Colo. 1982 ).   Emphasis on intent to define scope of general releases effectuates the purpose of this article in that it retains the liability of joint tortfeasors unless the releaser intended to release all claims. Neves v. Potter, 769 P.2d 1047 (Colo. 1989).   Applied in Martinez v. Stefanich, 195 Colo. 341 , 577 P.2d 1099 (1978); Hillman v. Bray Lines, 41 Colo. App. 493, 591 P.2d 1332 (1978); Sager v. City of Woodland Park, 543 F. Supp. 282 (D. Colo. 1982 ).
CO Code § 13-50.5-103 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure|Article 50.5 - Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors|§ 13-50.5-103. Pro Rata Shares

 The relative degrees of fault of the joint tortfeasors shall be used in determining their pro rata shares.   History. Source: L. 77: Entire article added, p. 809, § 1, effective July 1. L. 86: Entire section amended, p. 681, § 2, effective July 1.    ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For comment, “Multiple Defendants in Negligence Actions: Mountain Mobile Mix, Inc. v. Gifford”, see 56 U. Colo. L. Rev. 303 (1985). For article, “1986 Colorado Tort Reform Legislation”, see 15 Colo. Law. 1363 (1986). For article, “Negligent Entrustment”, see 16 Colo. Law. 642 (1987). For article, “Recovery of Interest: Part I -- Personal Injury”, see 18 Colo. Law. 1063 (1989).   Applied in Pub. Serv. Co. v. District Court, 638 P.2d 772 (Colo. 1981); Mtn. Mobile Mix, Inc. v. Gifford, 660 P.2d 883 (Colo. 1983).
CO Code § 13-50.5-104 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure|Article 50.5 - Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors|§ 13-50.5-104. Enforcement

  Whether or not judgment has been entered in an action against two or more tortfeasors for the same injury or wrongful death, contribution may be enforced by separate action.    Where a judgment has been entered in an action against two or more tortfeasors for the same injury or wrongful death, contribution may be enforced in that action by judgment in favor of one against other judgment defendants by motion upon notice to all parties to the action.    If there is a judgment for the injury or wrongful death against the tortfeasor seeking contribution, any separate action by him to enforce contribution must be commenced within one year after the judgment has become final by lapse of time for appeal or after appellate review.    If there is no judgment for the injury or wrongful death against the tortfeasor seeking contribution, his right of contribution is barred unless he has either:   Discharged by payment the common liability within the statute of limitations period applicable to claimant's right of action against him and has commenced his action for contribution within one year after payment; or    Agreed while action is pending against him to discharge the common liability and has within one year after the agreement paid the liability and commenced his action for contribution.       The recovery of a judgment for an injury or wrongful death against one tortfeasor does not of itself discharge the other tortfeasors from liability for the injury or wrongful death unless the judgment is satisfied. The satisfaction of the judgment does not impair any right of contribution.    The judgment of the court in determining the liability of the several defendants to the claimant for an injury or wrongful death shall be binding as among such defendants in determining their right to contribution.     History. Source: L. 77: Entire article added, p. 809, § 1, effective July 1.    ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, “Immunity to Direct Action: Is it a Defense to a Contribution Claim?”, see 52 U. Colo. L. Rev. 151 (1980).   A contribution action may brought within one year of the underlying judgment becoming final by lapse of the time for appeal, regardless of whether the parties have agreed to forego appellate proceedings. Gibraltar Cas. v. Walters, 185 F.3d 1103 (10th Cir. 1999).   Nonparty not bound by determination of relative fault. A nonparty to a suit cannot be conclusively bound by a jury's determination of relative fault in a subsequent declaratory judgment action for contribution. Nat'l Farmers Union Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Frackelton, 662 P.2d 1056 (Colo. 1983).   Applied in Nat'l Farmers Union Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Frackelton, 645 P.2d 1321 (Colo. App. 1981); Nat'l Farmers Union Prop. & Cas. Co. v. Frackelton, 650 P.2d 571 (Colo. App. 1981).
CO Code § 13-50.5-106 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure|Article 50.5 - Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors|§ 13-50.5-106. Uniformity of Interpretation

 This article shall be so interpreted and construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law of those states that enact it.   History. Source: L. 77: Entire article added, p. 810, § 1, effective July 1.
CO Code § 13-51-103 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure|Article 51 - Declaratory Judgments|§ 13-51-103. Definitions

 As used in this article, unless the context otherwise requires:    “Person” means any person, partnership, joint stock company, unincorporated association, or society, or municipal or other corporation of any character whatsoever.     History. Source: L. 23: P. 271, § 13. CSA: C. 93, § 90. CRS 53: § 77-11-13. C.R.S. 1963: § 77-11-13. History. Source: L. 23: P. 271, § 13. CSA: C. 93, § 90. CRS 53: § 77-11-13. C.R.S. 1963: § 77-11-13.
CO Code § 13-51-104 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure|Article 51 - Declaratory Judgments|§ 13-51-104. Interpretation and Construction

 This article shall be so interpreted and construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law of those states which enact it and to harmonize, as far as possible, with federal laws and regulations on the subject of declaratory judgments and decrees.   History. Source: L. 23: P. 271, § 15. CSA: C. 93, § 91. CRS 53: § 77-11-14. C.R.S. 1963: § 77-11-14. History. Source: L. 23: P. 271, § 15. CSA: C. 93, § 91. CRS 53: § 77-11-14. C.R.S. 1963: § 77-11-14.
CO Code § 13-51-107 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure|Article 51 - Declaratory Judgments|§ 13-51-107. Contract Construed Any Time

 A contract may be construed either before or after there has been a breach thereof.   History. Source: L. 23: P. 268, § 3. CSA: C. 93, § 80. CRS 53: § 77-11-3. C.R.S. 1963: § 77-11-3. History. Source: L. 23: P. 268, § 3. CSA: C. 93, § 80. CRS 53: § 77-11-3. C.R.S. 1963: § 77-11-3.    ANNOTATION   Validity of contract or question arising under contract must be pleaded. In an action under this article to determine the validity of a contract, the complaint failing to allege that the validity of the contract had been questioned, or that a question had arisen under it, no cause of action was stated. Gabriel v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Colo., 83 Colo. 582 , 267 P. 407 (1928).   Contracts interpreted only when all necessary facts determinable. Although this section and C.R.C.P. 57 provide that a contract may be interpreted prior to breach, these provisions are inapplicable where the dispute requires an interpretation in light of extrinsic facts which are not yet determinable. McDonald's Corp. v. Rocky Mt. McDonald's, Inc., 42 Colo. App. 143, 590 P.2d 519 (1979).   Insurer may seek declaration of contractual responsibilities of defense against “insured”. An insurer may seek a declaration of its contractual responsibilities of defense and indemnification in connection with a claim filed against a person who arguably qualifies as an “insured” under the insurance contract. Hartford Ins. Group v. District Court, 625 P.2d 1013 (Colo. 1981).
CO Code § 13-51-108 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure|Article 51 - Declaratory Judgments|§ 13-51-108. Purposes of Declaration

  Any person interested as or through an executor, administrator, trustee, guardian, or other fiduciary, creditor, devisee, legatee, heir, next of kin, or cestui que trust in the administration of a trust or of the estate of a decedent, an infant, a mental incompetent, or an insolvent may have a declaration of rights or legal relations in respect thereto:   To ascertain any class of creditors, devisees, legatees, heirs, next of kin, or other; or    To direct the executors, administrators, or trustees to do or abstain from doing any particular act in their fiduciary capacity; or    To determine any question arising in the administration of the estate or trust, including questions of construction of wills and other writings.        History. Source: L. 23: P. 269, § 4. CSA: C. 93, § 81. CRS 53: § 77-11-4. C.R.S. 1963: § 77-11-4. L. 75: IP(1) amended, p. 925, § 18, effective July 1. History. Source: L. 23: P. 269, § 4. CSA: C. 93, § 81. CRS 53: § 77-11-4. C.R.S. 1963: § 77-11-4. L. 75: IP(1) amended, p. 925, § 18, effective July 1.    ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, “Express Trusts in Colorado”, see 10 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 9 (1937).   This section does not authorize advice on matters not before the court. The court at the request of the parties will determine all questions that have properly arisen, but will decline to determine those which had not arisen and which might never arise during the administration of the trust. Neither under the equity practice nor under this act are the courts required to give general advice and instructions upon matters which have nut arisen at the time their jurisdiction is invoked. Mulcahy v. Johnson, 80 Colo. 499 , 252 P. 816 (1927).   It confers no new authority concerning wills and trusts. District courts had full and complete jurisdiction before the passage of that act to construe wills and trusts and to control executors and trustees in the administration of estates. Mulcahy v. Johnson, 80 Colo. 499 , 252 P. 816 (1927).   Applied in In re Estate of Daigle, 634 P.2d 71 (Colo. 1981).
CO Code § 13-51-109 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure|Article 51 - Declaratory Judgments|§ 13-51-109. Not a Limitation

 The enumeration in sections 13-51-106 to 13-51-108 does not limit or restrict the exercise of the general powers conferred in section 13-51-105 , in any proceeding where declaratory relief is sought, in which a judgment or decree will terminate the controversy or remove an uncertainty.   History. Source: L. 23: P. 269, § 5. CSA: C. 93, § 82. CRS 53: § 77-11-5. C.R.S. 1963: § 77-11-5. History. Source: L. 23: P. 269, § 5. CSA: C. 93, § 82. CRS 53: § 77-11-5. C.R.S. 1963: § 77-11-5.    ANNOTATION   Although § 13-51-106 and C.R.C.P. 57(b) detail situations in which declaratory judgment actions may be brought, they do not restrict the court's ability to grant declaratory relief in other situations when appropriate. Berenergy Corp. v. Zab, Inc., 94 P.3d 1232 (Colo. App. 2004), aff'd on other grounds, 136 P.3d 252 (Colo. 2006).   Declaratory judgment action is an appropriate means of testing the validity of a decree and resolving uncertainty as to the legal rights and status of the parties, even if the controversy has not yet ripened into litigation. In re Lockwood, 857 P.2d 557 (Colo. App. 1993).   A trial court may exercise its discretion to declare the existence of an oral contract and, if one exists, the terms of that contract, where such relief would “terminate the controversy or remove an uncertainty.” Zab, Inc. v. Berenergy Corp., 136 P.3d 252 (Colo. 2006).
CO Code § 13-51-110 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure|Article 51 - Declaratory Judgments|§ 13-51-110. When Court May Refuse

 The court may refuse to render or enter a declaratory judgment or decree where such judgment or decree, if rendered or entered, would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding.   History. Source: L. 23: P. 269, § 6. CSA: C. 93, § 83. CRS 53: § 77-11-6. C.R.S. 1963: § 77-11-6. History. Source: L. 23: P. 269, § 6. CSA: C. 93, § 83. CRS 53: § 77-11-6. C.R.S. 1963: § 77-11-6.
CO Code § 13-51-111 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure|Article 51 - Declaratory Judgments|§ 13-51-111. Review

 All orders, judgments, and decrees under this article may be reviewed as other orders, judgments, and decrees.   History. Source: L. 23: P. 269, § 7. CSA: C. 93, § 84. CRS 53: § 77-11-7. C.R.S. 1963: § 77-11-7. History. Source: L. 23: P. 269, § 7. CSA: C. 93, § 84. CRS 53: § 77-11-7. C.R.S. 1963: § 77-11-7.
CO Code § 13-51-112 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure|Article 51 - Declaratory Judgments|§ 13-51-112. Further Relief

 Further relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted when necessary or proper. The application therefor shall be by petition to a court having jurisdiction to grant the relief. If the application is deemed sufficient, the court, on reasonable notice, shall require any adverse party whose rights have been adjudicated by the declaratory judgment or decree to show cause why further relief should not be granted forthwith.   History. Source: L. 23: P. 269, § 8. CSA: C. 93, § 85. CRS 53: § 77-11-8. C.R.S. 1963: § 77-11-8. History. Source: L. 23: P. 269, § 8. CSA: C. 93, § 85. CRS 53: § 77-11-8. C.R.S. 1963: § 77-11-8.    ANNOTATION   Relief is not limited by language of statute or rule to prevailing party in declaratory judgment action. Atchison v. City of Englewood, 180 Colo. 407 , 506 P.2d 140 (1973).   Reversal of an underlying declaratory judgment is not the “further relief” contemplated by this section and C.R.C.P. 57(h) but is, instead, ordinary postjudgment relief. While “further relief” is not limited to the original prevailing party, nevertheless, such relief must seek remedies different from those granted in the declaratory judgment. Spencer v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 39 P.3d 1272 (Colo. App. 2001).
CO Code § 13-51-113 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure|Article 51 - Declaratory Judgments|§ 13-51-113. Issues of Fact

 When a proceeding under this article involves the determination of an issue of fact, such issue may be tried and determined in the same manner as issues of facts are tried and determined in other civil actions in the court in which the proceeding is pending.   History. Source: L. 23: P. 270, § 9. CSA: C. 93, § 86. CRS 53: § 77-11-9. C.R.S. 1963: § 77-11-9. History. Source: L. 23: P. 270, § 9. CSA: C. 93, § 86. CRS 53: § 77-11-9. C.R.S. 1963: § 77-11-9.    ANNOTATION   Factual determinations may be necessary in order to declare rights, status or legal relations. An action for declaratory judgment may be properly maintained by an insurance company to fix liability vel non, notwithstanding that factual determinations are necessary to make a declaration on the controlling issue. O'Herron v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 156 Colo. 164 , 397 P.2d 227 (1964); Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co. v. Bowser, 779 P.2d 1376 (Colo. App. 1989).   Parties are entitled to jury trial if issue would have matured into one at law. If the action in which declaratory relief is sought would have been an action at law had it been permitted to mature without intervention of declaratory procedure, the right to trial by jury of disputed questions of fact is not affected. Baumgartner v. Schey, 143 Colo. 373 , 353 P.2d 375 (1960).
CO Code § 13-51-114 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure|Article 51 - Declaratory Judgments|§ 13-51-114. Costs

 In any proceeding under this article, the court may make such award of costs as may seem equitable and just.   History. Source: L. 23: P. 270, § 10. CSA: C. 93, § 87. CRS 53: § 77-11-10. C.R.S. 1963: § 77-11-10. History. Source: L. 23: P. 270, § 10. CSA: C. 93, § 87. CRS 53: § 77-11-10. C.R.S. 1963: § 77-11-10.    ANNOTATION   County treasurer is entitled to attorney fees in mandamus suit against board of commissioners. Where county treasurer seeks writ of mandamus requiring board of commissioners to approve salaries set by treasurer and requests declaratory judgment construing and interpreting relative rights, powers and duties of treasurer and board under statute, treasurer is entitled to reasonable attorney fees incurred in prosecuting action. Kanaly v. Wadlow, 31 Colo. App. 193, 502 P.2d 83 (1972), modified, 511 P.2d 484 (1973).   This section does not evince a legislative intent to authorize cost awards against public entities, because this section neither explicitly refers to such entities nor to any action that can be brought only against such entities. Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. City of Golden, 113 P.3d 119 (Colo. 2005).
CO Code § 13-51.5-101 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure|Article 51.5 - Review of Land Use Decisions|§ 13-51.5-101. Scope and Purpose of Article

 This article applies to judicial review of local land use decisions in cases where it is alleged that a governmental body or officer or any lower judicial body exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion and there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy otherwise provided by law. Review shall be limited to a determination of whether the body or officer has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion, based on the evidence in the record before the defendant body or officer.   History. Source: L. 97: Entire article added, p. 214, § 2, effective July 1.