The supreme court from time to time may institute rules of practice, and prescribe forms of process to be used, and regulations for the keeping of the records and proceedings of the court, not inconsistent with the constitution or laws of this state.
Source: G.L. § 2604. G.S. § 3227. R.S. 08: § 1418. C.L. § 5630. CSA: C. 46, § 21. CRS 53: § 37-2-9. C.R.S. 1963: § 37-2-9.
ANNOTATION
Power to make rules is the constitutional right of the supreme court, aside from any common-law right or statutory grant. Kolkman v. People, 89 Colo. 8, 300 P. 575 (1931).
The word "rules" is synonymous with practice, procedure, custom, method, and system. Kolkman v. People, 89 Colo. 8, 300 P. 575 (1931).
Rules must not be inconsistent with the constitution or statute laws of the state. There is no statute giving costs to a defendant in case of a reversal of a criminal case, and the supreme court cannot award them under the guise of a power to prescribe rules of practice. Boykin v. People, 23 Colo. 183, 46 P. 635 (1896).
The court seriously questions the power of the general assembly to make any rules or to enact any laws relative to procedure in courts. It is doubtful if the general assembly could have enacted any law with reference to procedure in courts of record unless that power had been expressly or tacitly surrendered to it by the judiciary. Walton v. Walton, 86 Colo. 1, 278 P. 780 (1929).
Courts always have regulated their own practice and procedure. The act of the general assembly granting the supreme court the power to prescribe rules was not a delegation of legislative power, for the court has always regulated its own practice and procedure. Ernst v. Lamb, 73 Colo. 132, 213 P. 994 (1923).
The general assembly may not attempt to regulate the court's discretionary granting of a final decree in a divorce action for this is a procedural matter. Walton v. Walton, 86 Colo. 1, 278 P. 780 (1929).