(1) (a) When a party in interest alleges, or the court is of the opinion, that a case before the court of appeals is not properly within the jurisdiction of the court of appeals, the court of appeals shall refer the case to the supreme court. The supreme court shall decide the question of jurisdiction in a summary manner, and its determination shall be conclusive.
(b) A party in interest shall allege that a case is not properly within the jurisdiction of the court of appeals by motion filed with the court of appeals within twenty-one days after the date the record is filed with the clerk of the court of appeals, failing which any objection to jurisdiction by a party in interest shall be waived.
(2) Any case within the jurisdiction of the court of appeals which is filed erroneously in the supreme court shall be transferred to the court of appeals by the supreme court.
(3) No case filed either in the supreme court or the court of appeals shall be dismissed for having been filed in the wrong court but shall be transferred and considered properly filed in the court which the supreme court determines has jurisdiction.
Source: L. 69: p. 267, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 37-21-10. L. 71: p. 372, § 1. L. 2012: (1)(b) amended, (SB 12-175), ch. 208, p. 822, § 2, effective July 1.
ANNOTATION
Law reviews. For article, "Civil Interlocutory Appeals in Colorado State Courts", 49 Colo. Law. 38 (Oct. 2020).
Section is not in conflict with the constitution. This section and § 13-4-108, and § 2(2) of art. VI, Colo. Const., are not in conflict. Bill Dreiling Motor Co. v. Court of Appeals, 171 Colo. 448, 468 P.2d 37 (1970).
General assembly may legislate appellate subject matter jurisdiction. The changes brought about by this section, § 13-4-102, and § 13-4-108 pertain to the subject matter, i.e., jurisdiction of the supreme court and court of appeals and, as such, the changes are within the authority of the general assembly. Bill Dreiling Motor Co. v. Court of Appeals, 171 Colo. 448, 468 P.2d 37 (1970).
Statutes pertaining to the creation of appellate remedies take precedence over judicial rules of procedure. Bill Dreiling Motor Co. v. Court of Appeals, 171 Colo. 448, 468 P.2d 37 (1970).
Procedure is established for final review in the supreme court. The procedure established in this section and § 13-4-108 and in C.A.R. 50-57 clearly provides for appellate review in the supreme court. Bill Dreiling Motor Co. v. Court of Appeals, 171 Colo. 448, 468 P.2d 37 (1970).
This section permits transfer to the court of appeals of certain cases filed in the supreme court prior to January 1, 1970. Bill Dreiling Motor Co. v. Court of Appeals, 171 Colo. 448, 468 P.2d 37 (1970).
Because the substance of the complaint addressed primarily the use of water rights rather than their ownership, the complaint related to a water matter and should have been filed in a water court. However, the appeal was properly transferred from the supreme court to the court of appeals because the appeal was from a district court judgment. City of Sterling v. Sterling Irrig. Co., 42 P.3d 72 (Colo. App. 2002).
Although subsection (3) provides that cases filed in wrong appellate court shall not be dismissed, where appeal will not lie in either court, the only review being by certiorari, the case must be dismissed for failure to comply with the statutory procedure. People v. Meyers, 43 Colo. App. 63, 598 P.2d 526 (1979).
Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the supreme court may retain and review an appeal of a declaratory order of the state personnel board that should have been filed with the court of appeals. The court's authority rests in its power under C.A.R. 50(b) to review cases pending in the court of appeals prior to judgment and under C.A.R. 2 to suspend the rules of appellate procedure. Colorado Ass'n of Pub. Emp. v. Dept. of Highways, 809 P.2d 988 (Colo. 1991).
Court of appeals has jurisdiction over interlocutory ruling in injunction proceeding when the supreme court declined to exercise jurisdiction. Joel L. Schaffer v. C. M. Sullivan, P.C., 844 P.2d 1327 (Colo. App. 1992).
Trial court had jurisdiction as a matter of law to waive bond requirement for indigent taxpayer and proceed to adjudicate merits of appeal concerning use tax deficiency where undisputed evidence in affidavit form was proffered to the trial court reciting taxpayer's inability to post bond or make deposit required by statute. AF Prop. v. Dept. of Rev., 852 P.2d 1267 (Colo. App. 1992).
Where the court of appeals refers a question of its jurisdiction to the supreme court, which then determined the case properly within the court of appeal's jurisdiction, that ruling is conclusive. Barela v. Beye, 916 P.2d 668 (Colo. App. 1996).
Applied in Thomas v. County Court, 198 Colo. 87, 596 P.2d 768 (1979); People v. White, 199 Colo. 82, 606 P.2d 847 (1980); People v. Dooley, 630 P.2d 608 (Colo. 1981); People v. Scott, 630 P.2d 615 (Colo. 1981); People v. Thatcher, 638 P.2d 760 (Colo. 1981); People v. Abbott, 638 P.2d 781 (Colo. 1981); Federal Lumber Co. v. Wheeler, 643 P.2d 31 (Colo. 1981); People v. Mason, 642 P.2d 8 (Colo. 1982); Coquina Oil Corp. v. Harry Kourlis Ranch, 643 P.2d 519 (Colo. 1982); In re P.F. v. Walsh, 648 P.2d 1067 (Colo. 1982).