Rule 49 CONSIDERATIONS GOVERNING REVIEW ON CERTIORARI.

• Jurisdiction: Colorado

Rule 49. Considerations Governing Review on Certiorari.

Review in the supreme court on a writ of certiorari as provided in section 13-4-108, C.R.S., and section 13-6-310, C.R.S., is a matter of sound judicial discretion and will be granted only when there are special and important reasons. The following, while neither controlling nor fully measuring the supreme court's discretion, indicate the character of reasons that will be considered:

(a) the district court on appeal from the county court has decided a question of substance not yet determined by the supreme court;

(b) the court of appeals, or district court on appeal from the county court, has decided a question of substance in a way probably not in accord with applicable decisions of the supreme court;

(c) a division of the court of appeals has rendered a decision in conflict with the decision of another division of said court; the same ground applies to judgments and decrees of district courts on appeal from the county court when a decision is in conflict with another district court on the same matters;

(d) the court of appeals has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings or so far sanctioned such procedure by a lower court as to call for the exercise of the supreme court's power of supervision.

Source: Entire rule amended and effective June 7, 2018, effective July 1, 2018.

ANNOTATION

Law reviews. For article, "A Summary of Colorado Supreme Court Internal Operating Procedures", see 11 Colo. Law. 356 (1982).

The common-law writ of certiorari serves to correct substantial errors of law not otherwise reviewable which are committed by an inferior tribunal. Sutterfield v. District Court, 165 Colo. 225, 438 P.2d 236 (1968).

Statutes creating 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).

Scope of constitutional rule-making power. The manner in which subject matter jurisdiction is exercised is properly within the scope of the supreme court's rule-making powers vested by §2(1) of art. VI, Colo. Const. This procedure has been established and is set forth in C.A.R. 50 to 57. Bill Dreiling Motor Co. v. Court of Appeals, 171 Colo. 448, 468 P.2d 37 (1970).

Supreme court may not expand jurisdiction by rule. Supreme court jurisdiction, as initially spelled out in the Colorado constitution, may be expanded by statute. But there is no authority for the supreme court to expand its...