Rule 1 SCOPE OF RULES.

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

Rule 1. Scope of Rules.

(a) Matters Reviewable. An appeal to the appellate court may be taken from:

(1) A final judgment of any district, probate, or juvenile court in all actions or special proceedings whether governed by these rules or by the statutes;

(2) A judgment and decree, or any portion thereof, in a proceeding concerning water rights; and an order refusing, granting, modifying, cancelling, affirming or continuing in whole or in part a conditional water right, or a determination that reasonable diligence or progress has or has not been shown in an enterprise granted a conditional water right;

(3) An order granting or denying a temporary injunction;

(4) An order appointing or denying the appointment of, or sustaining or overruling a motion to discharge, a receiver.

(b) Limitation on Taking Appeals. The taking of appeals shall be in accordance with these rules except for special proceedings in which a different time period is set by statute for the taking of an appeal.

(c) Appeal Substitute for Writs of Error. Matters designated by statute to be reviewable by writ of error shall be reviewed on appeal as herein provided.

(d) Ground for Reversal, etc. Briefs filed pursuant to C.A.R. 28 (a) shall state clearly and briefly the grounds upon which the party relies in seeking a reversal or modification of the judgment or the correction of adverse findings, orders, or rulings of the trial court. The party will be limited to the grounds so stated although the court may in its discretion notice any error appearing of record. When an appeal has been taken, it shall not be dismissed upon motion of an appellant without notice to all interested parties whose appearances have been entered in the appellate court, and order of the court permitting such dismissal; if dismissal is objected to by any such interested party, the party may, in the court's discretion, seek reversal, modification, or correction of the judgment.

(e) Review of Water Matters. The notice of appeal (see C.A.R. 4) for review of the whole or any part of a judgment and decree or order as defined in subsection (a)(2) of this Rule shall designate as appellant the party or parties filing the notice of appeal and as appellee all other parties whose rights may be affected by the appeal and who in the trial court entered an appearance, by application, protest, or in any other authorized manner. If not an appellant, the division engineer shall be an appellee; provided that upon application, a dismissal may be entered as to the division engineer in the absence of objection made by any party to the appeal within 14 days from the mailing to such party of such application. The notice of appeal shall describe the water rights with sufficient particularity to apprise each appellee of the issues sought to be reviewed. The notice of appeal shall otherwise comply with the requirements of C.A.R. 3 (d).

Source: Entire rule amended and effective June 23, 2014.

Cross references: As to time limit for filing of notice of appeal and extension of such time, see C.A.R. 4; for time period for transmission of record, see C.A.R. 10; for requirements and contents of briefs, see C.A.R. 28; for enlargement of time limits in general, see C.R.C.P. 6(b); for provision that party claiming error must move for new trial, see C.R.C.P. 59; for provision exempting special proceedings from the rules of civil procedure, see C.R.C.P. 81; for statutory provisions for review of judgments in criminal cases, see §§16-12-101 through 16-12-103, C.R.S.

ANNOTATION

I. General Consideration.

II. Matters Reviewable.

A. In General.
B. Final Judgment.
C. Review of Water Matters.

III. Grounds for Reversal.

I. GENERAL CONSIDERATION.

Law reviews. For article, "Necessity for Writs of Error and Motions for New Trial for a Review in Colorado", see 2 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 99 (1930). For article, "The Grounds for Reversal of Criminal Cases in Colorado, 1864 to 1948", see 22 Rocky Mtn. L. Rev. 117 (1950). For note, "Colorado Appellate Procedure", see 40 U. Colo. L. Rev 551 (1968). For article, "Preserving Issues for Appeal", discussing the requirement of an offer of proof, see 20 Colo. Law. 879 (1991). For article, "Perfecting Appeals to the Colorado Court of Appeals", see 21 Colo. Law. 2385 (1992). For article, "There is Still a Chance: Raising Unpreserved Arguments on Appeal", see 42 Colo. Law. 29 (June 2013).

Appeal is a matter of right. Monti v. Bishop, 3 Colo. 605 (1877); Hull v. Denver Tramway Corp., 97 Colo. 523, 50 P.2d 791 (1935); Wheeler Kelly Hagny Trust Co. v. Williamson, 111 Colo. 515, 143 P.2d 685 (1943).

Appeal is adequate remedy to judgment of trial court. If, by any judgment entered by a trial court, the parties feel aggrieved, their remedy by appeal is speedy and altogether adequate for the protection of their rights, and there is no occasion for invoking the original jurisdiction of the supreme court. Prinster v. District Court, 137 Colo. 393, 325 P.2d 938 (1958).

Original proceeding may not be substituted for appeal. C. A.R. 21 concerning original proceedings may not be utilized to avoid the requirements of finality of judgments and orders set forth in this rule. Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. District Court, 140 Colo. 190, 343 P.2d 535 (1959).

Original proceedings in the supreme court may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Douglas v. Municipal Court, 151 Colo. 358, 377 P.2d 738 (1963); DeLong v. District Court, 151 Colo. 364, 377 P.2d 737 (1963).

Nor may writ of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus will not lie where an appeal is adequate and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. Nickle v. Reeder, 144 Colo. 593, 357 P.2d 921 (1960); Medberry v. Patterson, 142 Colo. 180, 350 P.2d 571 (1960), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 839, 82 S. Ct. 59, 7 L. Ed. 2d 39 (1961).

A party seeking only to affirm a lower court so that its holding may be used as precedent in other cases has not presented adequate grounds for an appeal, because the party is not seeking the reversal, modification, or correction of the holding as required under section (d). Broomfield v. Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co., 235 P.3d 296 (Colo. 2010).

Appellant must be party or aggrieved by lower court's decision. One of two tests must be met before a party may prosecute an appeal to the supreme court. He must either be a party to the action or he must be a person substantially aggrieved by the disposition of the case in the lower court. Tower v. Tower, 147 Colo. 480, 364 P.2d 565 (1961).

Only parties aggrieved may appeal. The word aggrieved refers to a substantial grievance, the denial to the party of some claim of right, either of property or of person, or the imposition upon him of some burden or obligation. Miller v. Reeder, 157 Colo. 134, 401 P.2d 604 (1965).

Guarantors of a surety company on a criminal recognizance, who are permitted to intervene in the trial court, and who are the only persons who would suffer loss from a forfeiture, are parties to the record and entitled to seek a review in the supreme court by appeal. Allison v. People, 132 Colo. 156, 286 P.2d 1102 (1955).

The attorney is properly before the supreme court on a motion for fees because he is a party substantially aggrieved by the disposition in the trial court. Equity demands that he be treated as an intervenor and he was so considered by the trial court and the parties because his motion for fees was on behalf of himself and not for the wife. Tower v. Tower, 147 Colo. 480, 364 P.2d 565 (1961).

Else appellant lacks standing. Where appellants are not proper parties in an action, they have no standing in the court of appeals to question the validity of a judgment. Duke v. Pickett, 30 Colo. App. 438, 494 P.2d 120 (1972).

Standing, for purposes of an appeal, means that a party must have alleged an injury in fact and that injury must be to a legally protected or cognizable interest. The right to appeal of a matter of law follows the property interest. City of Aspen v. Artes-Roy, 855 P.2d 22 (Colo. App. 1993).

Due process not denied by limitation on filing appeals. Prejudicial irregularity in a trial court proceeding must be asserted by an appeal, and where a party sues out an appeal to review a judgment, and thereafter dismisses the same and because of the lapse of time may not again apply for an appeal, due process of law is not denied. Davidson Chevrolet, Inc. v. City & County of Denver, 138 Colo. 171, 330 P.2d 1116 (1958), cert. denied, 359 U.S. 926, 79 S. Ct. 609, 3 L. Ed. 2d 629 (1959).

Time limitations are procedural. Limitations of time within which an appeal may be brought is procedural and may be fixed by the supreme court. Sitler v. Brians, 126 Colo. 370, 251 P.2d 319 (1952).

Motion for a new trial is a prerequisite to review on appeal in cases involving questions of law only as well as in cases involving questions of fact. Colo. State Bd. of Exam'rs of Architects v. Marshall, 136 Colo. 200, 315 P.2d 198 (1957).

It is mandatory upon the party claiming error to move the trial court for a new trial, unless an order dispensing with same is entered. Security Bldg. Co. v. Lewis, 127 Colo. 139, 255 P.2d 405 (1953).

This applies to temporary injunctions. Sections (b) and (f) of C.R.C.P. 59, requiring a motion for a new trial or an order dispensing therewith, apply to appeals brought to determine validity of orders granting or denying temporary injunctions under this rule. Minshall v. Pettit, 151 Colo. 501, 379 P.2d 394 (1963); CF&I Steel, L.P. v. United Steel Workers of Am., 990 P.2d 1124 (Colo. App. 1999), aff'd on other grounds, 23 P.3d 1197 (Colo. 2001).

Failure to move for new trial requires dismissal of appeal. Where no motion for new trial was filed, and no order dispensing with such filing was entered, the requirements of this rule were not complied with, and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. People ex rel. Dunbar v. South Platt Water Conservancy Dist., 139 Colo. 503, 343 P.2d 812 (1959).

In an action on a promissory note where judgment notwithstanding the verdict was...