The supreme court has the power to prescribe, by general rules, for the courts of record in the state of Colorado the practice and procedure in civil actions and all forms in connection therewith; except that no rules shall be made by the supreme court permitting or allowing trial judges to comment to the jury on the evidence given on the trial. Such rules shall neither abridge, enlarge, nor modify the substantive rights of any litigants. The supreme court shall fix the dates when such rules take effect and the extent to which they apply to proceedings then pending, and thereafter all laws in conflict therewith shall be of no further force or effect.
Source: L. 39: p. 264, § 1. CSA: omitted. CRS 53: § 37-2-8. C.R.S. 1963: § 37-2-8. L. 79: Entire section amended, p. 597, § 5, effective July 1.
ANNOTATION
There reposes in the supreme court the power to adopt rules for the regulation of practice and conduct of the business of courts of record in this state. People ex rel. Mijares v. Kniss, 144 Colo. 551, 357 P.2d 352 (1960).
It may not diminish federal jurisdiction. This section authorizing the supreme court to prescribe rules of civil procedure in civil actions gave it no authority to modify, abridge, or enlarge or diminish the jurisdiction of federal courts. People ex rel. Mijares v. Kniss, 144 Colo. 551, 357 P.2d 352 (1960).
Nor abridge, modify, or enlarge substantive rights. The supreme court had no power to give legal effect to modifications which unquestionably would "abridge", "enlarge", or "modify" substantive rights of litigants. People ex rel. Mijares v. Kniss, 144 Colo. 551, 357 P.2d 352 (1960).
What is procedural and what is substantive is frequently a question of great difficulty. People ex rel. Mijares v. Kniss, 144 Colo. 551, 357 P.2d 352 (1960).
The supreme court by rule cannot invest trial courts with an expanded jurisdiction. People ex rel. Mijares v. Kniss, 144 Colo. 551, 357 P.2d 352 (1960).
Where there is a conflict between a statute and a rule, the former must govern; rules of court can neither abridge, enlarge, nor modify substantive rights of a litigant. Sherman v. Colo. Springs Planning Comm'n, 729 P.2d 1014 (Colo. App. 1986), aff'd, 763 P.2d 292 (Colo. 1988); Herstam v. Bd. of Dirs., 895 P.2d 1131 (Colo. App. 1995).
Applied in Inwood Indus., Inc. v. Priestley, 37 Colo. App. 78, 545 P.2d 732 (1975); Zimmerman v. Mozer, 10 B.R 1002 (Bankr. D. Colo. 1981).