Chapter 5 - § 5.2 • INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS IN CIVIL CASES

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

§ 5.2 • INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS IN CIVIL CASES

When it appears that the district court has proceeded without jurisdiction, in excess of its jurisdiction, or has abused its discretion, application for relief may be made to the supreme court by an original proceeding when no other adequate appellate remedy exists. C.A.R. 21(a); People v. Argomaniz-Ramirez, 102 P.3d 1015, 1017 (Colo. 2004). See Chapter 18, "Original Proceedings in the Supreme Court." Certiorari review by the district court of county court orders is also available if the county court has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion and there is no other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4).

Determinations regarding governmental and sovereign immunity are subject to interlocutory appeal. C.R.S. §§ 13-22-228 and 24-10-118(2.5); City of Lakewood v. Brace, 919 P.2d 231, 241 (Colo. 1996). Similarly, orders denying a motion to dismiss based on tribal sovereign immunity grounds are also immediately appealable. Rush Creek Solutions, Inc. v. Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, 107 P.3d 402, 405-06 (Colo. App. 2004); see also U.S. Taekwondo Comm. v. U.S. Kukkiwon, Inc., 2013 COA 105 (ruling on immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act is immediately appealable). The denial of a motion to dismiss a claim based on qualified immunity under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act is also subject to an interlocutory appeal. Martinez v. Estate of Bleck, 2016 CO 58, ¶ 16. Orders on statutory immunity from liability may also be subject to interlocutory appeal. See, e.g., C.R.S. § 13-21-117.5(3) (immunity from civil liability for intellectual and developmental disability service providers); McLaughlin v. Oxley, 297 P.3d 1007, 1009 (Colo. App. 2012).

By rule, an appeal may be taken in cases involving temporary injunctions and appointment of receivers. C.A.R. 1(a)(3) and (4). In a very few instances, by court decision, orders that appear temporary in nature may nevertheless be appealable. See, e.g., Feigin v. Alexa Grp., Ltd., 19 P.3d 23, 26 (Colo. 2001) (orders denying intervention as of right are appealable orders); Rush Creek Solutions, Inc. v. Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, 107 P.3d 402, 406 (Colo. App. 2004) (orders denying motion to dismiss, based on tribal sovereign immunity grounds, are, like orders denying governmental and qualified immunity, immediately appealable); Sec. Investor Prot. Corp. v. First Entm't Holding Corp., 36 P.3d 175, 178 (Colo. App. 2001) (an order deciding issue of contempt...