Colorado
Colorado Defamation Laws: Libel & Slander (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited June 20, 2026). · Law checked current as of August 9, 2026. · 4 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

In Colorado, defamation is a civil claim covering libel (written) and slander (spoken), and you generally have one year to sue from when the statement is published, under C.R.S. section 13-80-103(1)(a). Colorado also enacted an anti-SLAPP statute in 2019 to deter lawsuits that target protected speech.
This guide is part of our Defamation Laws by State series. For the underlying concept, see what defamation of character means.
What counts as defamation in Colorado?
Defamation in Colorado is a false statement of fact, communicated to a third party, that is of and concerning the plaintiff and causes reputational harm with the required degree of fault. Colorado courts have generally held that a plaintiff must prove a defamatory statement that is false, published to someone other than the plaintiff, made with the degree of fault Colorado requires, and resulting in damage (unless the statement is defamation per se, where damage is presumed). Colorado sets that fault bar higher than many states. A public official or public figure, and also a private plaintiff suing over a statement on a matter of public interest or general concern, must prove falsity and either knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth, and must prove both by clear and convincing evidence. Ordinary negligence is enough only where a private person sues over a purely private matter. The statement must assert a fact that can be proven false; pure opinion that does not imply undisclosed facts is not actionable. Truth, or substantial truth, is a complete defense in Colorado. Statements must reasonably be understood to refer to the plaintiff, and certain communications, such as those made in judicial proceedings, are privileged.
Watch out: Calling a statement "just my opinion" does not automatically protect it. Colorado courts look at whether the statement implies provably false facts in context.
Libel vs slander in Colorado
Colorado, like most states, divides defamation into libel and slander based on the form of the statement. Libel is defamation in a written or otherwise permanent form, which includes newspapers, letters, emails, social media posts, and online reviews. Slander is spoken or transitory defamation, such as a verbal accusation made in front of others. The practical importance lies in proving damages: certain categories qualify as defamation per se, where harm is presumed, while other defamatory statements (per quod) require the plaintiff to prove actual or special damages. Colorado courts have applied these distinctions consistently, treating digital publications as libel because they are fixed and accessible over time. Regardless of form, the elements remain the same: a false statement of fact, published to a third party, concerning the plaintiff, with fault, that causes harm to reputation.

| Feature | Libel | Slander |
|---|---|---|
| Form | Written or fixed (print, online, email) | Spoken or transitory |
| Examples | Articles, posts, reviews, letters | Verbal accusations, speeches |
| Per se damages | Yes, for recognized categories | Yes, for recognized categories |
| Per quod | Requires proof of special damages | Requires proof of special damages |
Defamation per se in Colorado
Defamation per se in Colorado is a statement so inherently harmful that the law presumes reputational injury without proof of specific loss. Colorado courts have generally recognized the traditional per se categories: imputing a criminal offense, imputing a loathsome or communicable disease, statements that injure a person in their trade, business, office, or profession, and imputing unchastity or sexual misconduct. When a statement falls within one of these categories and is defamatory on its face without needing explanatory facts, the plaintiff may recover general damages without itemizing economic loss. Statements that are defamatory only when paired with extrinsic facts are treated as defamation per quod and require proof of special damages. Importantly, even where damages are presumed under state law, federal constitutional rules require a private plaintiff suing over a matter of public concern to prove actual malice to obtain presumed or punitive damages.
The statute of limitations to sue for defamation in Colorado
The statute of limitations for defamation in Colorado is one year, set by C.R.S. section 13-80-103(1)(a), which groups libel and slander with assault, battery, false imprisonment, and false arrest. The one-year period runs from when the cause of action accrues, which is generally when the defamatory statement is published. Colorado applies the single-publication rule, so a single edition of a publication or a single online posting is treated as one publication that starts the clock once, rather than restarting each time the content is viewed. Because one year is a short window, a plaintiff who waits is at serious risk of having the claim barred regardless of its merits. Where defamation is concealed, courts may apply a discovery rule that delays accrual until the plaintiff reasonably should have discovered the statement, but plaintiffs should not assume that exception applies.
Watch out: Colorado's one-year clock usually starts at publication, not when you find out. Old online posts can be time-barred by the time you discover them.
Colorado's anti-SLAPP law
Colorado enacted its anti-SLAPP statute, C.R.S. section 13-20-1101, in 2019, giving defendants a tool to dispose of meritless lawsuits that target protected speech early. The statute lets a defendant file a special motion to dismiss a claim arising from an act in furtherance of the right of petition or free speech in connection with a public issue. The court applies a burden-shifting framework: the defendant first shows the claim arises from protected activity, then the plaintiff must establish a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the claim. The statute is modeled closely on California's section 425.16, and Colorado courts have looked to California case law for guidance. A defendant generally must file the motion within 63 days after service of the complaint. If the motion succeeds, the prevailing defendant may recover attorney fees and costs, which discourages the filing of speech-chilling suits.

Public figures and actual malice
The fault a defamation plaintiff must prove depends on whether they are a public or private figure, a rule grounded in federal constitutional law that applies identically across all states. Under New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), a public official must prove actual malice, meaning the defendant knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) reaffirmed that public figures, like public officials, must prove actual malice, and left each state free to set the fault standard for private plaintiffs, so long as it does not impose liability without fault. Colorado chose a standard stricter than negligence. In Walker v. Colorado Springs Sun, Inc., 538 P.2d 450 (Colo. 1975), the Colorado Supreme Court rejected the negligence standard of liability and adopted the New York Times standard for a private plaintiff suing over a publication on a matter of public interest, and Diversified Management, Inc. v. Denver Post, Inc., 653 P.2d 1103 (Colo. 1982) applied the reckless disregard definition in cases involving matters of public interest or general concern as well as those brought by public officials and public figures. Colorado's pattern civil jury instruction 22:1 accordingly asks the jury to find falsity and knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard by clear and convincing evidence in those cases. The older common-law treatment, without that heightened showing, is reserved for a private person suing over a purely private matter under instruction 22:4. A plaintiff may be a general-purpose public figure, known widely, or a limited-purpose public figure who has voluntarily entered a specific public controversy.
Damages you can recover in Colorado
Colorado allows special, general, and punitive damages in defamation cases, with availability shaped by the type of statement and the plaintiff's status. Special damages are proven economic losses, such as lost customers, contracts, or income, that the plaintiff must document. General damages compensate for harm to reputation and emotional distress; these are presumed when the statement is defamation per se, so the plaintiff need not prove a specific dollar figure. Exemplary (punitive) damages may be available under C.R.S. section 13-21-102 where the injury is attended by circumstances of fraud, malice, or willful and wanton conduct. For a sense of where all these categories together might land, try our defamation damages calculator, which gives a rough range from the details you enter. The heightened burden of proof comes from a separate statute: C.R.S. section 13-25-127(2) allows exemplary damages only where the party asserting the claim proves the wrong beyond a reasonable doubt. An exemplary award may not exceed the actual damages awarded under section 13-21-102(1)(a), though a court may increase it to as much as three times actual damages in the circumstances listed in section 13-21-102(3). Federal constitutional rules add an overlay: on matters of public concern, a plaintiff must show actual malice before recovering presumed or punitive damages, even where Colorado law would otherwise presume harm.
How to sue for defamation in Colorado
Suing for defamation in Colorado generally follows a recognizable sequence, described here in general terms rather than as advice for any specific case. Plaintiffs often begin with a cease-and-desist or retraction demand asking the speaker to correct or remove the statement. Next comes preserving evidence: the exact words, the date, where it was published, screenshots with URLs, and proof the statement reached a third party. Plaintiffs should then assess the one-year deadline under C.R.S. section 13-80-103(1)(a) and the risk of an anti-SLAPP motion under C.R.S. section 13-20-1101, which can shift attorney fees to a losing plaintiff if the statement involved a public issue. The complaint is filed in the appropriate Colorado district or county court, identifying the false statement, its publication, and the resulting harm. Given the short deadline and anti-SLAPP exposure, consulting a lawyer licensed in Colorado is the sensible step.

How to Sue for Defamation of Character in Colorado
To sue for defamation of character in Colorado, a plaintiff generally must file within one year of the defamatory publication under C.R.S. 13-80-103(1)(a), which sets a one-year limit for libel and slander actions. Because this is a short window, acting promptly matters. Defamation cases belong in Colorado district court or county court, never in small claims court. C.R.S. 13-6-403(2)(b) withholds small claims jurisdiction over actions involving claims of defamation by libel or slander, and the Colorado Judicial Branch small claims brochure says the same. County court shares jurisdiction with the district court over tort claims up to $25,000 under C.R.S. 13-6-104(1), and larger claims go to district court. Filing in the wrong court risks dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, which is a serious hazard when the one-year limit under C.R.S. 13-80-103(1)(a) can expire while the mistake is being sorted out. The elements you must prove (a false statement of fact, publication to a third party, fault, and harm to reputation) and the available defenses (truth, privilege, and opinion) follow the same national rules covered in our main guide.
- Statute of limitations: 1 year (C.R.S. 13-80-103(1)(a))
- Where to file: Colorado district court, or county court for claims up to $25,000 (C.R.S. 13-6-104(1)). Small claims court cannot hear libel or slander claims (C.R.S. 13-6-403(2)(b))
- Damages: No statutory cap on compensatory damages. Exemplary damages are capped at the amount of actual damages awarded (C.R.S. 13-21-102(1)(a)), increasable to up to three times actual damages under 13-21-102(3), and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (C.R.S. 13-25-127(2))
- Anti-SLAPP: Strong. Colorado's anti-SLAPP statute (C.R.S. 13-20-1101) lets a defendant file a special motion to dismiss a suit over protected speech early, stays discovery, and allows fee recovery for a prevailing defendant.
Is defamation a crime in Colorado? No. Colorado's former criminal libel statute (C.R.S. 18-13-105) was repealed by the legislature in 2012 after constitutional challenges, so defamation is now handled as a civil matter through a private lawsuit for damages.
For the full step-by-step, see How to Sue for Defamation of Character.
Draft Your Letter
Use our free defamation cease and desist letter generator to draft a letter for Colorado. It pre-selects Colorado and surfaces its limitation period and anti-SLAPP status as you write.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue for defamation in Colorado?
Yes. Colorado recognizes civil claims for libel and slander. You must prove a false statement of fact, published to a third party, that concerns you and harms your reputation, and you must file within the one-year deadline under C.R.S. section 13-80-103(1)(a).
How long do I have to sue for defamation in Colorado?
One year from when the cause of action accrues, generally the date of publication, under C.R.S. section 13-80-103(1)(a). Colorado follows the single-publication rule, so the clock runs from the original publication.
Is Colorado a one-year state for defamation?
Yes. C.R.S. section 13-80-103(1)(a) places libel and slander in the one-year category, alongside assault, battery, false imprisonment, and false arrest.
What is defamation per se in Colorado?
It is a statement so damaging that injury is presumed, such as imputing a crime, a loathsome disease, professional misconduct, or unchastity. When a statement is defamation per se, a plaintiff may recover general damages without proving specific economic loss.
Does Colorado have an anti-SLAPP law?
Yes. Colorado enacted C.R.S. section 13-20-1101 in 2019. It lets defendants file a special motion to dismiss speech-based claims, applies a burden-shifting test modeled on California law, and allows a prevailing defendant to recover attorney fees.
Can I sue over a bad online review in Colorado?
Possibly, but only if the review states a false fact rather than opinion. If the review concerns a matter of public interest or general concern, Colorado requires you to prove falsity and knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard by clear and convincing evidence, not mere negligence. Such a review can also trigger an anti-SLAPP motion under C.R.S. section 13-20-1101, exposing a weak claim to the defendant's attorney fees. A libel or slander claim cannot be brought in small claims court under C.R.S. 13-6-403(2)(b).
Is truth a defense to defamation in Colorado?
Yes. Truth, including substantial truth, is a complete defense in Colorado because falsity is a required element. An unflattering but accurate statement is not defamatory.
What is the difference between libel and slander in Colorado?
Libel is written or fixed defamation, including online posts and emails, while slander is spoken. Colorado treats digital publications as libel. Both can qualify as defamation per se, supporting presumed damages.
Updates
Corrected the description of Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.: it reaffirmed the actual-malice rule for public figures, which the Supreme Court had first extended to them in 1967.
Corrected where a Colorado defamation case can be filed (small claims court cannot hear libel or slander, and county court jurisdiction runs to $25,000), stated Colorado's higher fault standard for statements on matters of public interest or general concern, and attributed the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt burden for exemplary damages to C.R.S. 13-25-127(2) alongside the 13-21-102 cap.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 13: Courts and Court Procedure
§ 13-80-103General limitation of actions - one yearIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) The following civil actions, regardless of the theory upon which suit is brought, or against whom suit is brought, shall be commenced within one year after the cause of action accrues, and not thereafter: (a) The following tort actions: Assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, libel, and slander; (b) All actions for escape of prisoners; (c) All actions against sheriffs, coroners, police officers, firefighters, national guardsmen, or any other law enforcement authority; (d) All actions for any penalty or forfeiture of any penal statutes; (e) All actions under the Motor Vehicle Repair Act of 1977, article 9 of title 42, C.R.S.; (f) and (g) Repealed. (h) All actions against a person alleging liability for a penalty for commission of a class A or a class B traffic infraction, as defined in section 42-4-1701; and (i) All actions against a person alleging liability for a penalty for commission of a civil infraction, as described in section 16-2.3-101. (2) Section 47 of chapter 68 (HB 22-1229), Session Laws of Colorado 2022, provides that the act adding subsection (1)(i) is effective March 1, 2022, but the governor did not approve the act until April 7, 2022.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at olls.info
Cited in 23 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Owens v. Okure (Supreme Court of the United States 1989, 488 U.S. 235)“…0-102.5 (Supp. 1988) (two years for medical malpractice); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-80-103 (a) (1987) (one year for assault, batte…”
- Stump v. Gates (District Court, D. Colorado 1991, 777 F. Supp. 808)“…amation claims must be filed within one year after accrual. Colo.Rev.Stat. § 13-80-103(1)(a). These claims accrue on the date…”
- Blake v. Dickason (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 1993, 997 F.2d 749)“…tiple personal injury statutes of limitations. See, e.g., Colo.Rev.Stat. § 13-80-103(l)(a) (1987) (assault and battery); id…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Colorado Jury Duty Laws: Pay, Exemptions and Employer Rules, Colorado Statute of Limitations: Filing Deadlines by Case Type
§ 13-20-1101Action involving exercise of constitutional rights - motion to dismiss - appeal - legislative declaration - definitionsIn force
(1) (a) The general assembly finds and declares that it is in the public interest to encourage continued participation in matters of public significance and that this participation should not be chilled through abuse of the judicial process. (b) The general assembly finds that the purpose of this part 11 is to encourage and safeguard the constitutional rights of persons to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in government to the maximum extent permitted by law and, at the same time, to protect the rights of persons to file meritorious lawsuits for demonstrable injury.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at olls.info
Cited in 16 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Coomer v. Make Your Life Epic (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2024, 98 F.4th 1320)“…(Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-20-1101. The district court denied this motio…”
- ReportHost LLC v. Spectora Inc. (District Court, D. Colorado 2025)“…tora, Inc.’s Special Motion to Dismiss Count V Pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-20-1101 [Docket No. 16], and Plaintiff ReportH…”
- Rocky Mtn. Rebar Inc. v. Wanzek Construction Inc. (District Court, D. Colorado 2025)“…smiss the tort claims under Colorado’s anti-SLAPP statute, C.R.S. §§ 13-20-1101 et seq.3 II. LEGA…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 13-21-102Exemplary damagesIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) (a) In all civil actions in which damages are assessed by a jury for a wrong done to the person or to personal or real property, and the injury complained of is attended by circumstances of fraud, malice, or willful and wanton conduct, the jury, in addition to the actual damages sustained by such party, may award him reasonable exemplary damages. The amount of such reasonable exemplary damages shall not exceed an amount which is equal to the amount of the actual damages awarded to the injured party. (b) As used in this section, willful and wanton conduct means conduct purposefully committed which the actor must have realized as dangerous, done heedlessly and recklessly, without regard to consequences, or of the rights and safety of others, particularly the plaintiff. (1.5) (a) A claim for exemplary damages in an action governed by this section may not be included in any initial claim for relief.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at olls.info
Cited in 154 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Sky Fun 1 v. Schuttloffel (Supreme Court of Colorado 2001, 27 P.3d 361)“…(2) "Whether the Court of Appeals erred by determining that C.R.S. § 13-21-102(1)(a), which provides a one-to-one limi…”
- Hernandez v. City & County of Denver (Colorado Court of Appeals 2018, 439 P.3d 57)“…ek exemplary damages against any defendant is governed by C.R.S. § 13-21-102 which provides that exemplary damages…”
- Harris v. Stallings (Colorado Court of Appeals 2025)“…fraud, malice, or willful and wanton conduct.” C.R.S. § 13-21-102(1)(a). Plaintiff solely off…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Exemplary Damages in Colorado: Cap, Proof and Rules (2026)
§ 13-25-127Civil actions - degree of proof requiredIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) Any provision of the law to the contrary notwithstanding and except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, the burden of proof in any civil action shall be by a preponderance of the evidence. The provisions of this subsection (1) shall not apply to the burden of proof required in determining the validity of any legislative enactment. (2) Exemplary damages against the party against whom the claim is asserted shall only be awarded in a civil action when the party asserting the claim proves beyond a reasonable doubt the commission of a wrong under the circumstances set forth in section 13-21-102. Nothing in this subsection (2) shall be construed as preventing a party asserting the claim from being awarded money damages or other appropriate relief, other than exemplary damages, if he sustains the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. (3) (Deleted by amendment, L. 95, p. 15, § 5, effective March 9, 1995.) (4) This section became effective July 1, 1972, and applies only to civil actions which accrue on or after such date.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at olls.info
Cited in 33 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- People v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of Colorado 2012, 292 P.3d 1248)“…ceedings proof is by clear and convincing evidence) (citing C.R.S. § 13-25-127); Attorney Grievance Commission of Mary…”
- Sheila White, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co., Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee (Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2004, 364 F.3d 789)“…nvincing evidence). Colorado Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-25-127 (2) (1991) (beyond a…”
- Karnes v. SCI Colorado Funeral Services, Inc. (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 1998, 162 F.3d 1077)“…ld that the beyond a reasonable doubt standard set forth in Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-25-127 applied to punitive damages claims unde…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 13-6-104Original civil jurisdictionIn force
(1) On and after January 1, 2019, the county court shall have concurrent original jurisdiction with the district court in civil actions, suits, and proceedings in which the debt, damage, or value of the personal property claimed does not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars, including by way of further example, and not limitation, jurisdiction to hear and determine actions in tort and assess damages therein not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars. The county court shall also have jurisdiction of counterclaims in all such actions when the counterclaim does not exceed twenty-five thousand dollars. (2) The county court shall have concurrent original jurisdiction with the district court in actions to foreclose liens pursuant to article 20 of title 38 and in cases of forcible entry, forcible detainer, or unlawful detainer, except when such cases involve the boundary or title to real property and except as provided in section 13-40-109.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at olls.info
§ 13-6-403Jurisdiction of small claims court - limitationsIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) (a) The small claims court has concurrent original jurisdiction with the county and district courts in all civil actions in which the debt, damage, or value of the personal property claimed by either the plaintiff or the defendant, exclusive of interest and costs, does not exceed seven thousand five hundred dollars, including such civil penalties as may be provided by law. By way of further example, and not limitation, the small claims court has jurisdiction to hear and determine actions in tort and assess damages in tort actions not to exceed seven thousand five hundred dollars. (b) The small claims court division also has concurrent original jurisdiction with the county and district courts in actions where a party seeks: (I) To enforce rights and responsibilities arising under the declaration, bylaws, covenants, or other governing documents of a unit owners' association, as defined in section 38-33.3-103 (3), in relation to disputes arising from assessments, fines, or fees owed to the unit owners' association and for which the amount at issue does not exceed seven thousand five hundred dollars, exclusive of interest and costs.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at olls.info
Cited in 1 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 1998
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Ortiz v. Costilla County Board of Commissioners (District Court, D. Colorado 1998, 11 F. Supp. 2d 1254)“…original jurisdiction with the county and district courts,” C.R.S. § 13-6-403(1), it shall “have no jurisdiction exce…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Colorado Scam and Fraud Laws: Where to Report, Right to Sue (2026), Colorado Small Claims Court: $7,500 Limit, Fees and How to File
Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 18: Criminal Code
§ 18-13-105Criminal libel. (Repealed)Repealed
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at olls.info
Cited in 4 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2010
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mink v. Suthers (Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit 2007, 482 F.3d 1232)“…eby to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule.” Colo.Rev.Stat. § 18-13-105. While a student at the University of N…”
- Mink v. Knox (District Court, D. Colorado 2008, 566 F. Supp. 2d 1217)“…potential violations of Colorado’s criminal libel statute, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-13-105 . The police, in conjunction "with the…”
- Mink v. Salazar (District Court, D. Colorado 2004, 344 F. Supp. 2d 1231)“…the constitutionality of Colorado’s criminal libel statute, Colo.Rev.Stat. § 18-13-105 (“Libel Statute”), an issue the Plainti…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Sources and References
- C.R.S. section 13-80-103(1)(a) (one-year limitation for libel and slander)(leg.colorado.gov).gov
- Colorado HB19-1324, anti-SLAPP statute enacted 2019 (C.R.S. 13-20-1101)(leg.colorado.gov).gov
- C.R.S. section 13-20-1101 (anti-SLAPP special motion to dismiss; 63-day deadline)(leg.colorado.gov).gov
- C.R.S. section 13-21-102 (exemplary damages, capped at actual damages)(leg.colorado.gov).gov
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)(law.cornell.edu)
- Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974)(law.cornell.edu)
- C.R.S. section 13-25-127(2) (exemplary damages must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt)(olls.info)
- Colorado Judicial Branch, Small Claims Court brochure (small claims court cannot hear libel or slander cases)(coloradojudicial.gov)
- Colorado Civil Jury Instructions Chapter 22 (Defamation), Instruction 22:1 and Introductory Note (clear and convincing evidence; Walker; Diversified Management)(coloradojudicial.gov)