Bindinglaw

CO · jury_instructions

CJI-Civ. 30:26

Defense — Statute of Limitations

activein force · 2026-02-25 – presentcompiled-edition

The defendant, (name), is not legally responsible to the plaintiff, (name), on the

plaintiff’s claim of breach of contract if the affirmative defense of the expiration of the

statute of limitations is proved. This defense is proved if you find both of the following:

1. (Describe the events that constituted the claimed breach) occurred before (insert the

appropriate date); and

2. Plaintiff knew, or should have known, with the exercise of reasonable diligence, of

the existence of the (claimed) breach before (insert the appropriate date).

History

CJI-Civ. (2026), Colorado Supreme Court Committee on Pattern Civil Jury Instructions. Dated 2026-02-25 by the committee page's "Revised 2/25/26".

Provenance

Source
www.coloradojudicial.gov
Retrieved
2026-09-24
Edition
civ-2026-02-25
Content hash
b0be2aa811a3ab24f1ec08de646d6e6ecc94a6cb8598276f5c6a48fbe44132bf
View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs

Bindinglaw

Point-in-time US law with the receipt attached. Source URL, retrieval time, content hash, and validity dates on every answer.

curl api.binding.law/v1/law/coverage

© 2026 binding.law · a Jubal, Inc. productAttorneys and firms never pay. Ever.
CJI-Civ. 30:26 — Defense — Statute of Limitations · binding.law