This article is declared to be remedial; its purpose is to settle and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to rights, status, and other legal relations; and it is to be liberally construed and administered.
Source: L. 23: p. 270, § 12. CSA: C. 93, § 89. CRS 53: § 77-11-12. C.R.S. 1963: § 77-11-12.
ANNOTATION
Law reviews. For article, "Twenty-six Years Under the Colorado Declaratory Judgments Act", see 27 Dicta 177 (1950).
The purpose of the statute and the rule is to be remedial and to afford relief from uncertainty and insecurity. The statute and rule expressly provide that they be liberally construed and administered. Colo. State Bd. of Optometric Exam'rs v. Dixon, 165 Colo. 488, 440 P.2d 287 (1968).
This article is designed to afford parties relief from uncertainty with respect to their rights and status under law. Silverstein v. Sisters of Charity, 38 Colo. App. 286, 559 P.2d 716 (1976).
Liberal construction makes this section applicable to decisions to be made by board or commission. A liberal construction of the statute and the rule rejects the proposition that a person adversely affected by a statute and seeking relief from uncertainty and insecurity with respect to his rights by reason of a statute or a rule of a board or commission must take the risk of prosecutions, fines, imprisonment, loss of property, or loss of profession in order to secure adjudication of his rights. Colo. State Bd. of Optometric Exam'rs v. Dixon, 165 Colo. 488, 440 P.2d 287 (1968).
This article is to be liberally construed and administered. Silverstein v. Sisters of Charity, 38 Colo. App. 286, 559 P.2d 716 (1976).
Who may seek judicial determination of rights. One whose rights are favorably affected by a statute is entitled to seek a judicial determination thereof so long as the court is provided with a properly adverse context. Silverstein v. Sisters of Charity, 38 Colo. App. 286, 559 P.2d 716 (1976).
One whose rights or status may be affected by statute is entitled to have any question of construction determined provided that a substantial controversy between adverse parties of sufficient immediacy to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment exists. Silverstein v. Sisters of Charity, 38 Colo. App. 286, 559 P.2d 716 (1976); Buckley Powder Co. v. State, 924 P.2d 1133 (Colo. App. 1996), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 945 P.2d 841 (Colo. 1997).
This statute neither expands nor contracts the jurisdiction of Colorado's courts. In creating a new remedy the general assembly did not by implication grant political subdivisions of the state the right to sue the state. Romer v. Fountain Sanitation Dist., 898 P.2d 37 (Colo. 1995).
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).
Trial court properly exercised its jurisdiction to review a Wyoming dissolution decree where the marital status of the parties was at issue and could be speedily and efficiently resolved through a declaratory judgment action. In re Lockwood, 857 P.2d 557 (Colo. App. 1993).
Applied in Toncray v. Dolan, 197 Colo. 382, 593 P.2d 956 (1979); Citizens Progressive Alliance v. S.W. Water Conservation Dist., 97 P.3d 308 (Colo. App. 2004).