Colo. R. App. P. 1
C.A.R. 1
COMMENT
2022
The portion of subsection (d) concerning motions to dismiss an appeal was relocated to C.A.R. 42(b). The portion of subsection (d) specifying briefing requirements was relocated to C.A.R. 28(a)(7)(B).
Annotation 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). 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 subsection (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 entered for plaintiff, and defendant failed to file a motion for a new trial, and the necessity for such a motion was not dispensed with pursuant to C.R.C.P. 59(f), an appeal to review such judgment will be dismissed. Boyd v. Adjustment Bureau, Inc., 148 Colo. 233, 365 P.2d 813 (1961). As does insufficient motion for new trial. This rule presupposes that a motion for a new trial be filed with the trial court, and an appeal was dismissed where the motion which was filed was couched in such broad and general language that it informed the court that appellants were dissatisfied with the judgment, as if no motion for new trial was ever filed. Martin v. Opdyke Agency, Inc., 156 Colo. 316, 398 P.2d 971 (1965). Substantial noncompliance with procedure requires dismissal. Where the rules relating to procedure on appeal in the supreme court are ignored or disregarded in substantial particulars, an appeal will be dismissed. Farrell v. Bashor, 140 Colo. 408, 344 P.2d 692 (1959). But strict compliance not necessary where status of children at stake. While a motion may fail to comply strictly with the requirements of C.R.C.P. 59, when the status of minor children is at stake, a court of appeals will notice error in the trial court proceedings, and remand for findings. In re Brown, 626 P.2d 755 (Colo. App. 1981). Supreme court may dismiss an appeal on its own motion where there is no jurisdiction to review the case. Unzicker v. Unzicker, 74 Colo. 211, 220 P. 495 (1923); Diebold v. Diebold, 74 Colo. 557, 223 P. 46 (1924). Jurisdiction of district court while appeal pending. Once a case is in the supreme court on appeal, a trial court is without jurisdiction to vacate its judgment or enter another or different judgment. 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). Appellate court must not, upon review, sit as thirteenth juror and set aside a verdict because it might have drawn different conclusion from all evidence. People v. Vigil, 180 Colo. 104, 502 P.2d 418 (1972). If sentences imposed are within statutory bounds, and if they do not shock the conscience of the court, they will not be disturbed on the grounds that they constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Trujillo v. People, 178 Colo. 136, 496 P.2d 1026 (1972). Transfer to court of appeals does not violate rule. Section 13-4-110(2), providing that cases within the jurisdiction of the court of appeals may be transferred from the supreme court, is not void and the statutory procedure is not contrary to this rule. Bill Dreiling Motor Co. v. Court of Appeals, 171 Colo. 448, 468 P.2d 37 (1970). There is a recognized distinction between "proceedings" and "special proceedings". Hewitt v. Landis, 75 Colo. 277, 225 P. 842 (1924); Silter v. Brians, 126 Colo. 370, 251 P.2d 319 (1952). Applied in Graham v. Swift, 123 Colo. 309, 228 P.2d 969 (1951); Hart v. Herzig, 131 Colo. 458, 283 P.2d 177 (1955); Cline v. McDowell, 132 Colo. 37, 284 P.2d 1056 (1955); Addressograph-Multigraph Corp. v. Kelly, 146 Colo. 550, 362 P.2d 184 (1961); Schwab v. Martin, 165 Colo. 547, 441 P.2d 17 (1968); Reed v. Reed, 29 Colo. App. 199, 481 P.2d 125 (1971); People v. Morris, 190 Colo. 215, 545 P.2d 151 (1976); In re Gardella, 190 Colo. 402, 547 P.2d 928 (1976); Sanderson v. District Court, 190 Colo. 431, 548 P.2d 921 (1976); Bd. of Water Works v. Pueblo Water Works Employees Local 1045, 196 Colo. 308, 586 P.2d 18 (1978); In re Estate of Dandrea, 40 Colo. App 547, 577 P.2d 1112 (1978); People v. Rael, 198 Colo. 225, 597 P.2d 584 (1979); Gardner v. State, 200 Colo. 221, 614 P.2d 357 (1980); Abts v. Bd. of Educ., 622 P.2d 518 (Colo. 1980); Ward v. Indus. Comm'n, 44 Colo. App. 301, 612 P.2d 1164 (1980); People in Interest of G.L., 631 P.2d 1118 (Colo. 1981); In re Rominiecki v. McIntyre Livestock Corp., 633 P.2d 1064 (Colo. 1981); Schuster v. Zwicker, 659 P.2d 687 (Colo. 1983); M.E.G. v. R.B.D., 676 P.2d 1250 (Colo. App. 1983). II. Matters Reviewable. A. In General. Practice under the former code of civil procedure is analogous to the practice under this rule. Burks v. Maudlin, 109 Colo. 281, 124 P.2d 601 (1942). Appeals are not allowed for mere purpose of delay, or to present purely abstract legal questions, however important or interesting, but to correct errors injuriously affecting the rights of some party to the litigation. Miller v. Reeder, 157 Colo. 134, 401 P.2d 604 (1965). Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by act of parties. Jurisdiction of an appeal which otherwise does not exist cannot be conferred by act of the parties. Sons of Am. Bldg. & Inv. Ass'n v. City of Denver, 15 Colo. 592, 25 P. 1091 (1890); Bd. of Comm'rs v. McIntire, 23 Colo. 137, 46 P. 638 (1896). An appellate court will consider only those questions properly raised by the appealing parties. Denver United States Nat'l Bank v. People ex rel. Dunbar, 29 Colo. App. 93, 480 P.2d 849 (1970). And issues between parties to appeal. Appellate review is limited to a consideration of issues between the parties to an appeal. Mills v. Saunders, 30 Colo. App. 462, 494 P.2d 1309 (1972). Constitutional challenges to sales and use tax provisions of municipal code made to an administrative agency but were not made in declaratory judgment action in district court are not properly preserved for appellate review. Arapahoe Roofing & Sheet Metal v. Denver, 831 P.2d 451 (Colo. 1992). Colorado rules and decisions discourage the review of a cause piecemeal. Vandy's, Inc. v. Nelson, 130 Colo. 51, 273 P.2d 633 (1954); Berry v. Westknit Originals, Inc., 145 Colo. 48, 357 P.2d 652 (1960); Levine v. Empire Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 34 Colo. App. 235, 527 P.2d 910 (1974), aff'd, 189 Colo. 64, 536 P.2d 1134 (1975). Only section (a) orders are appealable. One seeking review of a judgment or order must bring his case within one of the categories under section (a); otherwise, it is not an appealable order. Freshpict Foods, Inc. v. Campos, 30 Colo. App. 354, 492 P.2d 867 (1971). A denial of a summary judgment motion is not generally considered a final decision that is immediately appealable under this rule. City of Lakewood v. Brace, 919 P.2d 231 (Colo. 1996). The denial of a motion for summary judgment is not an appealable ruling. Herrera v. Gene's Towing, 827 P.2d 619 (Colo. App. 1992). Interlocutory appeal proper on denial of county department of social services employees' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity where denial was based on trial court's finding that plaintiff children pleaded facts sufficient to establish a violation by county employees of a clearly established constitutional right. Interlocutory review is proper but limited to the trial court's legal conclusions, taking plaintiff children's factual allegations as true. Shirk v. Forsmark, 2012 COA 3, 272 P.3d 1118. Temporary restraining order is not appealable. Under this rule an ex parte temporary restraining order entered by the trial court is not an order granting a "temporary injunction" which is subject to review on appeal. Simpson v. Simpson, 151 Colo. 88, 376 P.2d 55 (1962). A temporary restraining order issued under C.R.C.P. 65(b), is not an appealable order under section (a) of this rule. Freshpict Foods, Inc. v. Campos, 30 Colo. App. 354, 492 P.2d 867 (1971); O'Connell v. Colo. State Bank, 633 P.2d 511 (Colo. App. 1981). But order granting preliminary injunction is reviewable. An order granting a preliminary injunction restraining the board of optometric examiners from enforcing its regulation is reviewable by appeal. Colo. State Bd. of Optometric Exam'rs v. Dixon, 165 Colo. 488, 440 P.2d 287 (1968). Order appointing or overruling motion to discharge a receiver is reviewable on appeal before final judgment. Boyd v. Brown, 79 Colo. 568, 247 P. 181 (1926). This rule provides opportunity to seek a receiver's discharge and have review if the trial court should refuse the request. Thompson v. Beck, 92 Colo. 441, 21 P.2d 712 (1933). An order entered on a motion to discharge a receiver, although intermediate in a sense, is expressly made reviewable on appeal before final judgment. Melville v. Weybrew, 108 Colo. 520, 120 P.2d 189 (1941), cert. denied, 315 U.S. 811, 62 S. Ct. 795, 86 L. Ed. 1210, reh'g denied, 315 U.S. 830, 62 S. Ct. 913, 86 L. Ed. 1224 (1942). But appeal from interlocutory order not mandatory. Although an order granting or denying the appointment of a receiver is appealable as of right, pursuant to this rule, it is not mandatory that an appeal be taken from such an interlocutory order. Jouflas v. Wyatt, 646 P.2d 946 (Colo. App. 1982). If an interlocutory appeal is not taken from an order appointing a receiver, a party may still appeal the subject matter of the interlocutory order upon the entry of a final judgment. Application of Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 703 P.2d 1314 (Colo. App. 1985). And matters not disposed of by trial court not considered on review. Where a petition in intervention is filed in an action involving the appointment of a receiver, questions raised by the petition which have not been disposed of by the trial court will not be considered on review of the order appointing the receiver. Woods v. Capitol Hill State Bank, 70 Colo. 221, 199 P. 964 (1921). Prosecutor's appeal pursuant to § 16-12-102 subject to the final judgment requirement of this rule. People v. Guatney, 214 P.3d 1049 (Colo. 2009). An order declining to revoke probation is not a final judgment within meaning of this rule, thus the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. People v. Guatney, 214 P.3d 1049 (Colo. 2009). Probation revocation order reviewable. Nothing in § 16-12-101 , prohibits a direct appeal of a probation revocation order under this rule. People v. Carr, 185 Colo. 293, 524 P.2d 301 (1974). Appellate review of a county court's decision is available by direct appeal to the Colorado supreme court. Abts v. Bd. of Educ., 622 P.2d 518 (Colo. 1980). Appeal may not be taken from order denying application to compel arbitration on an employment contract entered into before July 14, 1975. Monatt v. Pioneer Astro Indus., Inc., 42 Colo. App. 265, 592 P.2d 1352 (1979). Chartering decisions of banking board not within rule. Proceedings in the court of appeals to review chartering decisions of the banking board do not fall within the rules applicable to appeals generally. Columbine State Bank v. Banking Bd., 34 Colo. App. 11, 523 P.2d 474 (1974). B. Final Judgment. Appeal may be taken from final judgment only. Doane v. Glenn, 1 Colo. 417 (1872); Hadley v. Fish, 3 Colo. 51 (1876); Alvord v. McGaushey, 5 Colo. 244 (1880); Wehle v. Kerbs, 6 Colo. 167 (1882); Meyer v. Brophy, 15 Colo. 572, 25 P. 1090 (1890); Tatarsky v. Smith, 78 Colo. 491, 242 P. 971 (1926); Colo. State Bank v. Bird, 79 Colo. 625, 247 P. 802 (1926); People ex rel. Ernst v. Eldred, 86 Colo. 174, 279 P. 41 (1929); Martin v. Way, 86 Colo. 232, 280 P. 488 (1929); Commercial Credit Co. v. Higbee, 88 Colo. 300, 295 P. 792 (1931); Marysville & Colo. Land Co. v. Heyde, 93 Colo. 523, 27 P.2d 498 (1933); Crews-Beggs Dry Goods Co. v. Bayle, 96 Colo. 19, 40 P.2d 233 (1934); Julius Hyman & Co. v. Velsicol Corp., 119 Colo. 121, 201 P.2d 380 (1948); North Sterling Irrigation Dist. v. Knifton, 132 Colo. 212, 286 P.2d 612 (1955); People v. Hernandez, 155 Colo. 519, 395 P.2d 733 (1964) (decided prior to adoption of C.A.R. 4.1 providing for interlocutory appeals in criminal cases). Entry of final judgment is a prerequisite to the right to prosecute an appeal. Stonebraker v. Konugres, 117 Colo. 429, 188 P.2d 894 (1948). An order entered by a trial court which is a final judgment is subject to review on appeal, and on such appeal an adequate remedy is available. DeLong v. District Court, 151 Colo. 364, 377 P.2d 737 (1963). Other than to orders of the kinds specifically enumerated, an appeal may be taken only from a final judgment, and questions with respect to other interlocutory orders may be presented only on review of the final judgment. State v. Harrah, 118 Colo. 468, 196 P.2d 256 (1948); Vandy's, Inc. v. Nelson, 130 Colo. 51, 273 P.2d 633 (1954). The supreme court cannot determine the propriety of the order of the district court dismissing the action as against the bank where the order or judgment, which the appellant has brought up for review is not a final judgment, but interlocutory, to which an appeal does not lie unless some statute expressly authorizes it. Boxwell v. Greenley Union Nat'l Bank, 89 Colo. 574, 5 P.2d 868, 80 A.L.R. 1179 (1931). Or from order mentioned in subsections (a)(2), (3), or (4). Save in the exceptional instances mentioned in subsection (a)(2), (3), and (4), an appeal may be taken from a final judgment only. Burks v. Maudlin, 109 Colo. 281, 124 P.2d 601 (1942); Vandy's, Inc. v. Nelson, 130 Colo. 51, 273 P.2d 633 (1954). But not interlocutory order. An appeal may not be taken to review an interlocutory order unless expressly authorized by rule or statute. Vandy's, Inc. v. Nelson, 130 Colo. 51, 273 P.2d 633 (1954); Lucas v. District Court, 140 Colo. 510, 345 P.2d 1064 (1959). An appeal to review an interlocutory order of a district court may not be taken. Town of Glendale v. City & County of Denver, 137 Colo. 188, 322 P.2d 1053 (1958). Appeal dismissed if no final judgment. If it appears on review that there is no final judgment, the appeal will be dismissed. People ex rel. Ernst v. Eldred, 86 Colo. 174, 279 P. 41 (1929); Martin v. Way, 86 Colo. 232, 280 P. 488 (1929); Stuchlik v. Talpers, 90 Colo. 277, 8 P.2d 762 (1932); Marysville & Colo. Land Co. v. Heyde, 93 Colo. 523, 27 P.2d 498 (1933); Morron v. McDaniel, 127 Colo. 180, 254 P.2d 862 (1953); Vandy's, Inc. v. Nelson, 130 Colo. 51, 273 P.2d 633 (1954); Schoenwald v. Schoen, 132 Colo. 142, 286 P.2d 341 (1955); Cutting v. DeAndrea, 135 Colo. 501, 313 P.2d 315 (1957); Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. District Court, 140 Colo. 190, 343 P.2d 535 (1959); Ortega v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 657 P.2d 989 (Colo. App. 1982). Where record discloses only the sustaining of a motion to dismiss the action without the entry of any order of dismissal, no "matter reviewable" being presented, the appeal will be dismissed. Slifka v. Viettie, 110 Colo. 138, 131 P.2d 417 (1942). Where there was no final judgment for money against appellants, only an injunction to desist from manufacturing and selling their products, and an accounting was still to be had, an appeal may not be taken and must be dismissed. Julius Hyman & Co. v. Velsicol Corp., 119 Colo. 121, 201 P.2d 380 (1948). Because case improperly before appellate court. Where the so-called judgment and orders of the court from which an appeal is taken do not constitute a final judgment, a case is therefore improperly before an appellate court on appeal. People v. People in Interest of G.L.T., 177 Colo. 196, 493 P.2d 20 (1972). Judicial notice of absence of final judgment. Although the absence of a final judgment was not raised by any of the parties, the court is required to take notice thereof. Hait v. Miller, 38 Colo. App. 503, 559 P.2d 260 (1977). "Final judgment" is one which ends the particular action in which it is entered, leaving nothing further for the court pronouncing it to do in order to completely determine the rights of the parties involved in the proceeding. People v. Cochran, 176 Colo. 364, 490 P.2d 684 (1971); People in Interest of D.H., 37 Colo. App. 544, 552 P.2d 29 (1976), aff'd, 192 Colo. 542, 561 P.2d 5 (1977); Moore v. Gardner, 40 Colo. App. 194, 571 P.2d 318 (1977); People in Interest of E.A., 638 P.2d 278 (Colo. 1981); Harding Glass Co. v. Jones, 640 P.2d 1123 (Colo. 1982); People in Interest of P.L.B., 743 P.2d 980 (Colo. App. 1987); Foothills Meadow v. Myers, 832 P.2d 1097 (Colo. App. 1992); Things Remembered v. Fireman's Ins. Co., 924 P.2d 1089 (Colo. App. 1996). The supreme court has consistently defined a final judgment as one which concludes a case to the extent that no further action is required in order to completely determine the rights of the parties involved. Levine v. Empire Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 34 Colo. App. 235, 527 P.2d 910 (1974), aff'd, 189 Colo. 64, 536 P.2d 1134 (1975). Until a final judgment has been rendered and entered, no substantial rights of the parties have been determined or effected. North Sterling Irrigation Dist. v. Knifton, 132 Colo. 212, 286 P.2d 612 (1955). Otherwise, it is interlocutory. If the order entered in a cause does not put an end to the action, but leaves something further to be done before the rights of the parties are determined, it is interlocutory and not final, for, to be final, it must end the particular suit in which it is entered. Dusing v. Nelson, 7 Colo. 184, 2 P. 922 (1883); Rice v. Van Why, 49 Colo. 7, 111 P. 599 (1910); District Court v. Eagle Rock Gold Mining & Reduction Co., 50 Colo. 365, 115 P. 706 (1911); Goodknight v. Harper, 70 Colo. 41, 197 P. 237 (1921); Peters v. Peters, 82 Colo. 503, 261 P. 874 (1927); Boxwell v. Greeley Union Nat'l Bank, 89 Colo. 574, 5 P.2d 868, 80 A.L.R. 1179 (1931); Julius Hyman & Co. v. Velsicol Corp., 119 Colo. 121, 201 P.2d 380 (1948); Morron v. McDaniel, 127 Colo. 180, 254 P.2d 862 (1953); Vandy's, Inc. v. Nelson, 130 Colo. 51, 273 P.2d 633 (1954); Jones v. Galbasini, 134 Colo. 64, 299 P.2d 503 (1956); Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. District Court, 140 Colo. 190, 343 P.2d 535 (1959); Berry v. Westknit Originals, Inc., 145 Colo. 48, 357 P.2d 652 (1960); Andrews v. Hayward, 149 Colo. 585, 369 P.2d 980 (1962); Stillings v. Davis, 158 Colo. 308, 406 P.2d 337 (1965). Final judgment must terminate the litigation between the parties. Boxwell v. Greeley Union Nat'l Bank, 89 Colo. 574, 5 P.2d 868, 80 A.L.R. 1179 (1931); Johnson v. Johnson, 132 Colo. 236, 287 P.2d 49 (1955); Jones v. Balbasini, 134 Colo. 64, 299 P.2d 503 (1956). A judgment or decree is not final which determines the action as to less than all of the defendants. Berry v. Westknit Originals, Inc., 145 Colo. 48, 357 P.2d 652 (1960). Until such time as the issue raised by the plea of not guilty by reason of insanity be resolved, there can be no final judgment from which an appeal could be taken, as the litigation has not yet been terminated on its merits. Rupert v. People, 156 Colo. 277, 398 P.2d 434 (1965). Final judgment must leave nothing to be done except ministerial act of execution. Boxwell v. Greeley Union Nat'l Bank, 89 Colo. 574, 5 P.2d 868, 80 A.L.R. 1179 (1931). Where there was no order dismissing or otherwise disposing of the claim against the appellee nor was there any order entered in accordance with C.R.C.P. 54(b), there was no final judgment to support an appeal. Hait v. Miller, 38 Colo. App. 503, 559 P.2d 260 (1977). Certification of order does not constitute final adjudication. If an order does not constitute final adjudication of a claim, certification of it as such does not operate to make it so. Levine v. Empire Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 34 Colo. App. 235, 527 P.2d 910 (1974), aff'd, 189 Colo. 64, 536 P.2d 1134 (1975). No particular form of words necessary. A judgment must adjudicate the issues and be complete in itself. Apart from statute, no particular form of words is necessary to constitute a judgment. Jones v. Galbasini, 134 Colo. 64, 299 P.2d 503 (1956). The court should regard the substance and effect of an order, rather than its form, to determine whether it is subject to review. Cent. Locomotive & Car Works v. Smith, 27 Colo. App. 449, 150 P. 241 (1915). The character of an instrument, whether a judgment or an order, is to be determined by its contents and substance, and not by its title. Johnson v. Johnson, 132 Colo. 236, 287 P.2d 49 (1955). Counsel, by the simple step of relabeling the procedure by which review is sought, generally may not make a judicial order that is interlocutory in nature reviewable before a final judgment is entered in a case. Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. District Court, 140 Colo. 190, 343 P.2d 535 (1959). In dissolution proceeding, where trial court incorporated partial separation agreement as well as oral supplemental agreement into the decree of dissolution, there was a final, appealable order notwithstanding the fact that wife's counsel failed to prepare and file a written form of the supplemental agreement. The decree was dated and signed by the trial court and, by expressly incorporating both the partial separation agreement and the supplemental agreement, it left nothing further for the court to do in order to completely determine the rights of the parties. In re Sorensen, 166 P.3d 254 (Colo. App. 2007). Relief granted may be equitable or legal. A final determination of a cause is a judgment whether the relief granted is equitable or legal. Johnson v. Johnson, 132 Colo. 236, 287 P.2d 49 (1955). Multiple claims or parties. Final adjudication of a particular claim in a case involving multiple claims or multiple parties may be certified as a final judgment. Levine v. Empire Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 34 Colo. App. 235, 527 P.2d 910 (1974), aff'd, 189 Colo. 64, 536 P.2d 1134 (1975). In a multi-count information, dismissal of some charges is a final order appealable under this rule. People v. Jefferson, 748 P.2d 1223 (Colo. 1988). Decision to remand is final judgment where based on denial of procedural due process. The trial court's decision to remand is a final judgment where the remand is premised solely on the conclusion that the party seeking review has been denied procedural due process. Scott v. City of Englewood, 672 P.2d 225 (Colo. App. 1983). District court's dismissal without prejudice was not final and appealable order. Court's dismissal, without prejudice, of plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 on the basis that claims were not properly joined with claim for judicial review under § 42-2-122 , was not a final and appealable order, and dismissal of appeal was therefore proper. Norby v. Charnes, 764 P.2d 407 (Colo. App. 1988). The denial of a motion for judgment on the pleadings is not a final judgment subject to review on appeal. It is an interlocutory order. Central Locomotive & Car Works v. Smith, 27 Colo. App. 449, 150 P. 241 (1915); North Sterling Irrigation Dist. v. Knifton, 132 Colo. 212, 286 P.2d 612 (1955). When denial of summary judgment is not appealable. Denial of a motion for summary judgment is not an appealable order when it does not otherwise put an end to the litigation. Glennon Heights, Inc. v. Cent. Bank & Trust, 658 P.2d 872 (Colo. 1983). Pretrial ruling that statute is unconstitutional does not constitute a "final judgment" for purposes of appeal. People v. Young, 814 P.2d 834 (Colo. 1991). A default is not a final judgment. Moore v. Gardner, 40 Colo. App. 194, 571 P.2d 318 (1977). Neither is an order quashing service of summons. An order quashing service of summons and denying a default, but entering no judgment against plaintiff, is not a final judgment that can be reviewed in the appellate court. Brockway v. W. & T. Smith Co., 17 Colo. App. 96, 66 P. 1073 (1902). Nor order striking bench warrants. An order of the trial court striking all bench warrants issued in aid of an execution and discharging defendant from custody is not a final judgment from which an appeal may be taken. Latimer Constr. Co. v. Cram, 152 Colo. 533, 383 P.2d 315 (1963). Nor an order for costs. An order of the district court requiring defendants to pay for the additions to the record requested by them was not such a final judgment as would form basis for an allegation of error. Hays v. City & County of Denver, 127 Colo. 154, 254 P.2d 860 (1953). An order of a trial court rendering judgment for costs alone, but not adjudicating the case proper is not such a final judgment as would be subject to review on appeal. Free v. Chandler, 155 Colo. 128, 393 P.2d 9 (1964). Nor an order for sales under powers. Proceedings under C.R.C.P. 120, providing for orders for sales under powers are not an adversary proceeding in which the court determines issues and enters a final judgment, and no appeal may be taken to review the same. Hastings v. Sec. Thrift & Mtg. Co., 145 Colo. 36, 357 P.2d 919 (1960). Nor an order on motion to vacate a judgment. An order overruling a motion to vacate a judgment is not final in the sense that it may be reviewed on appeal. Polk v. Butterfield, 9 Colo. 325, 12 P. 216 (1886); Hughes v. Felton, 11 Colo. 489, 19 P. 444 (1888); Miller v. Buyer, 77 Colo. 329, 236 P. 990 (1925); Van Dyke v. Fishman, 77 Colo. 333, 236 P. 990 (1925). An order of a trial court in setting aside its former judgment is not a final judgment; therefore, an appeal is premature. Schtul v. Christ, 132 Colo. 293, 287 P.2d 661 (1955). An appeal may not be taken from an order of the trial court vacating a judgment since that order is not a final judgment within the scope and meaning of this rule. Westerkamp v. Westerkamp, 155 Colo. 534, 395 P.2d 737 (1964). Order setting aside default. The only proper procedure to secure review of a trial court's order granting an application to set aside a default judgment is by appeal after final judgment. Gen. Aluminum Corp. v. Arapahoe County Dist. Court, 165 Colo. 445, 439 P.2d 340 (1968). Additur to verdict. An order of the trial court granting additur to verdict of jury, or, if either party elected not to accept such additur, granting a new trial is not a final judgment from which an appeal may be taken until, following an election to stand upon the record, the action proceeds to judgment. Herzog v. Murad, 147 Colo. 345, 363 P.2d 645 (1961). Orders for intervention. The nature of orders for intervention is interlocutory. An order granting intervention does no more than add a new party plaintiff. Such an order is not final, and no appeal from it lies until after entry of final judgment in an action. Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. District Court, 140 Colo. 190, 343 P.2d 535 (1959). Denial of motion to join third parties. An order denying defendant's motion to make another a third-party plaintiff, being interlocutory and not a final judgment, could be presented only on review of the final judgment as an appeal cannot be taken to review such order. Burks v. Maudlin, 109 Colo. 281, 124 P.2d 601 (1942). Denial of a motion to make a party or parties third-party defendants is not a final judgment subject to review on appeal. Weaver v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 146 Colo. 157, 360 P.2d 807 (1961). Order for temporary possession. In an eminent domain proceeding an appeal may not be taken to review an interlocutory order granting immediate temporary possession. Lucas v. District Court, 140 Colo. 510, 345 P.2d 1064 (1959). Remand of license application without affirmance or reversal. Where a trial court remands a license application case without affirming or reversing, but with instructions for further proceedings, the order is not final and appealable. Safeway Stores, Inc. v. City of Trinidad, 31 Colo. App. 75, 497 P.2d 1277 (1972). Appeal while motion for new trial is pending is premature. Plaintiff's appeal is premature, inasmuch as the trial court has not yet entered any final judgment resolving once and for all the controversy at the trial court level, because plaintiff's motion for new trial is still pending. Commercial Credit Corp. v. Frederick, 164 Colo. 5, 431 P.2d 1016 (1967). Order granting or denying a motion for a new trial is not appealable. Gonzales v. Trujillo, 133 Colo. 64, 291 P.2d 1063 (1956). Where a motion for new trial is granted the issues stand undisposed of; hence an appeal taken from the granting of such motion will be dismissed. Gonzales v. Trujillo, 133 Colo. 64, 291 P.2d 1063 (1956); Andrews v. Hayward, 149 Colo. 585, 369 P.2d 980 (1962). Where a court has ordered that the defendant be tried again on the same charge, such a ruling is not appealable, for the judgment is not final. People v. Cochran, 176 Colo. 364, 490 P.2d 684 (1971). The granting of "a motion for new trial" is not a motion from which the state can appeal an adverse ruling, for an order granting a motion for new trial does not constitute a final judgment. People v. Cochran, 176 Colo. 364, 490 P.2d 684 (1971). Child custody order reviewable. An order determining custody of children, like an order determining alimony, is reviewable in the supreme court. Miller v. Miller, 129 Colo. 462, 271 P.2d 411 (1954); People in Interest of K.L. and A.L., 681 P.2d 535 (Colo. App. 1984). Even though child custody order states that it is "temporary", the order is permanent and appealable if it is a permanent adjudication of custody. In re Murphy, 834 P.2d 1287 (Colo. App. 1992). Delinquency proceedings subject to finality requirements. Delinquency proceedings are no less subject to the finality requirements of subsection (a)(1) of this rule than any other type of proceeding. People in Interest of D.H., 37 Colo. App. 544, 552 P.2d 29 (1976), aff'd, 192 Colo. 542, 561 P.2d 5 (1977). Dependency and neglect proceedings are subject to the finality requirements of subsection (a)(1). People in Interest of P.L.B., 743 P.2d 980 (Colo. App. 1987); People in Interest of C.L.S., 934 P.2d 851 (Colo. App. 1996). Following an adjudication of dependency and neglect, the initial disposition order adopting a treatment plan constitutes a "decree of disposition" and renders the adjudication and the initial dispositional order final for purposes of appeal. People in Interest of C.L.S., 934 P.2d 851 (Colo. App. 1996). Modification of an order for out-of-home placement of a child is interlocutory and not appealable as such modification does not affect the legal custody of the child. People in Interest of P.L.B., 743 P.2d 980 (Colo. App. 1987). Permanency order in juvenile proceedings held interlocutory in nature. People in Interest of H.R., 883 P.2d 619 (Colo. App. 1994). Adjudication of a child as dependent or neglected, with the dispositional hearing continued to a future date, does not become a final judgment until a decree of disposition is entered. People in Interest of E.A., 638 P.2d 278 (Colo. 1981). Order of juvenile division of district court waiving jurisdiction. It is evident from the provisions of §§ 19-3-108(4), 19-3-106 , and 19-3-109 , that an order of the juvenile division of the district court waiving jurisdiction is not a final disposition of the action. People in Interest of D.H., 37 Colo. App. 544, 552 P.2d 29 (1976), aff'd, 192 Colo. 542, 561 P.2d 5 (1977). Whether a probate court order is final and appealable must be determined on a case-by-case basis. The test for finality is whether the order disposes of and is conclusive of the controverted claim for which the proceeding was brought. Estate of Binford v. Gibson, 839 P.2d 508 (Colo. App. 1992). An order which completely determines the issues of the trustee's indebtedness to and compensation from the estate is a final judgment on those issues. Retainer of jurisdiction by the probate court to later modify the trustee's rate of compensation does not change the order into an interlocutory order. Estate of Binford v. Gibson, 839 P.2d 508 (Colo. App. 1992). The same rules of finality apply in probate cases as in other civil cases. An order of the probate court is final if it ends the particular action in which it is entered and leaves nothing further for the court pronouncing it to do in order to completely determine the rights of the parties as to that proceeding. In re Estate of Scott, 119 P.3d 511 (Colo. App. 2004), aff'd, 136 P.3d 892 (Colo. 2006). C.R.C.P. 54(b) governs the interlocutory appeal of a probate court order. In re Estate of Scott, 119 P.3d 511 (Colo. App. 2004), aff'd, 136 P.3d 892 (Colo. 2006). Where probate court's order of partial summary judgment adjudicated fewer than all of the parties' claims, it was not a final judgment, and party could not appeal the order without C.R.C.P. 54(b) certification. In re Estate of Scott, 119 P.3d 511 (Colo. App. 2004), aff'd, 136 P.3d 892 (Colo. 2006). Order granting a stay in action pending resolution of case involving similar issues in another state was not a final appealable order where the issues and parties were not identical in the two proceedings and the order did not preclude plaintiff from seeking to lift the stay based upon a showing of prejudice. Things Remembered v. Fireman's Ins. Co., 924 P.2d 1089 (Colo. App. 1996). Granting a motion to dismiss a complaint is not in and of itself a final and reviewable order of judgment from which an appeal may be taken. District 50 Metro. Rec. Dist. v. Burnside, 157 Colo. 183, 401 P.2d 833 (1965). But entry of judgment on dismissal is final. A written ruling by a trial court ordering a complaint to be dismissed and the entry of judgment of dismissal by the clerk pursuant thereto, constitutes a final judgment. Jones v. Galbasini, 134 Colo. 64, 299 P.2d 503 (1956). An order of a trial court dismissing an action for failure to prosecute is a final judgment. Johnson v. Johnson, 132 Colo. 236, 287 P.2d 49 (1955). An appeal could be taken from a judgment of dismissal entered on the motion of the district attorney. People v. Hernandez, 155 Colo. 519, 395 P.2d 733 (1964). A plaintiff who voluntarily accepted an award through stipulation is estopped by his conduct from claiming any further right to relief by appeal. Farmers Elevator Co. v. First Nat'l Bank, 30 Colo. App. 529, 497 P.2d 352 (1972), aff'd, 181 Colo. 231, 508 P.2d 1261 (1973). Where parties stipulate that judgment be satisfied, and the stipulation is approved by the court, an appeal becomes moot. Farmers Elevator Co. v. First Nat'l Bank, 30 Colo. App. 529, 497 P.2d 352 (1972), aff'd, 181 Colo. 231, 508 P.2d 1261 (1973). Unless there is no inconsistency between enforcement and appeal. A party who accepts an award or legal advantage under any order, judgment, or decree ordinarily waives his right to any such review of the adjudication as may again put in issue his right to the benefit which he has accepted, unless the decree is such or the circumstances such that there is no inconsistency between such enforcement and the appeal. Farmers Elevator Co. v. First Nat'l Bank, 30 Colo. App. 529, 497 P.2d 352 (1972), aff'd, 181 Colo. 231, 508 P.2d 1261 (1973). Dimissal of class action aspects of case held to constitute final judgment. Levine v. Empire Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 192 Colo. 188, 557 P.2d 386 (1976). Judgment of district court on appeal from assessment reviewable. Under subsection (a)(1) of this rule, the supreme court may review the judgment of the district court rendered in a statutory proceeding relating to appeals from assessments made by the county assessor. In re Hover Motors, Inc., 120 Colo. 511, 212 P.2d 99 (1949). Revocation of deferred sentence appealable. A defendant may either appeal an order revoking a deferred sentence pursuant to this rule, or file a motion for postconviction review, pursuant to Crim. P. 35(c). People v. Boykin, 631 P.2d 1149 (Colo. App. 1981). A postjudgment collection order is final if the order ends the particular part of the action in which it is entered, leaves nothing further for the court pronouncing it to do in order to completely determine the rights of the parties as to that part of the proceeding, and is more than a ministerial or administrative determination. Luster v. Brinkman, 250 P.3d 664 (Colo. App. 2010). State cannot appeal delinquency case. An appeal on behalf of the state to review decisions of trial courts on questions of law arising in criminal cases cannot lie for a proceeding in delinquency case, for such is not a criminal case. People in Interest of P.L.V., 176 Colo. 342, 490 P.2d 685 (1971). Rather, the state's right to appeal exists only where the trial court's decision terminates a prosecution. People v. Cochran, 176 Colo. 364, 490 P.2d 684 (1971). When final judgment entered. For purposes of appeal, the final judgment was entered when trial court reversed its previous order imposing costs on the defendant, and therefore state's appeal taken more than 30 days after sentencing was proper. People v. Fisher, 539 P.2d 1253 (1975). Since the trial court reserved ruling on defendant's request to withdraw his guilty plea, there is no final appealable order, so appellate review is not available. People v. Durapau, __ P.3d __ (Colo. App. 2011). C. Review of Water Matters. The supreme court has jurisdiction to review a general adjudication decree settling the priorities of the reservoirs upon a particular stream, and this necessarily involves the power to determine whether a reservoir to which a priority has been awarded is entitled to any priority whatsoever. Greeley & Loveland Irrigation Co. v. Huppe, 60 Colo. 535, 155 P. 386 (1916). And may make and direct the entry of a proper amended decree. On appeal to review an adjudication decree, when any part of the decree is reversed, and where practicable, the supreme court shall make and direct the entry of a proper amended decree. Greeley & Loveland Irrigation Co. v. Handy Ditch Co., 77 Colo. 487, 240 P. 270 (1925). The supreme court has jurisdiction over an appeal from a water court judgment that is a full, final, and complete determination of claims presented. The only claim at issue was a city's application for a refill right, and the mere presence of a signature line for the federal court, per the parties' stipulation, did not affect the validity of the water court's decree nor did it transfer authority to the federal court. City of Grand Junction v. Denver, 960 P.2d 675 (Colo. 1998). All water users are proper parties. Where a proceeding is conducted pursuant to statutory direction, all users of water affected by said proceeding are, in effect, parties and have full right to protect their rights had they so desired. Green v. Chaffee Ditch Co., 150 Colo. 91, 371 P.2d 775 (1962). But appellants must be aggrieved by judgment to prosecute appeal. Where the only parties designated as appellees and served with notice of appeal for supreme court review were the plaintiffs in the trial court whose claims therein were dismissed and judgment entered therein in favor of the appellants, the appellants being in no wise aggrieved by the judgment, the appeal will be dismissed. Camenisch v. Nuccitelli, 150 Colo. 141, 372 P.2d 85 (1962). Incomplete judgment on claims reversed. Where a statutory water adjudication proceeding is brought up for review, and it appears that there was an incomplete determination of some of the claims before the trial court, the judgment is reversed on that ground only, the supreme court declining to pass upon the case piecemeal. Northern Colo. Irrigation Co. v. City & County of Denver, 86 Colo. 54, 278 P. 592 (1929). In a proceeding to adjudicate priority of rights to the use of water, a general water adjudication was held not final, where it failed to determine all claims presented. Northern Colo. Irrigation Co. v. City & County of Denver, 86 Colo. 54, 278 P. 592 (1929). III. Grounds for Reversal. No judicial obligation is more imperative than the accomplishment of justice in any particular case where the trial record does not reflect as an absolute that every evidentiary requirement for sustaining a guilty verdict was fulfilled. People v. Emeson, 179 Colo. 308, 500 P.2d 368 (1972). Specification of points no longer required. The rules of civil procedure, apparently having been confusing to the bar as to the distinction between the "specification of points" and the "statement of each point intended to be urged" formerly required, were amended to eliminate specification of points. Mauldin v. Lowery, 127 Colo. 234, 255 P.2d 976 (1953); Allison v. Heller, 132 Colo. 415, 289 P.2d 160 (1955). Incorrect instruction may be error. Where the instruction affects substantial rights of the plaintiffs, the supreme court may elect to address the correctness of the instruction in order to prevent injustice. Blueflame Gas, Inc. v. Van Hoose, 679 P.2d 579 (Colo. 1984). General statement of error insufficient. A statement of grounds for reversal so general that it covers any possible question involved in the record is not sufficient to authorize its consideration on review. Allison v. Heller, 132 Colo. 415, 289 P.2d 160 (1955). A general specification of points is insufficient and will not be considered upon review. Farrell v. Bashor, 140 Colo. 408, 344 P.2d 692 (1959). An assertion that the findings and orders of a trial court are contrary to the evidence and contrary to the law is not sufficient to authorize its consideration upon review. Allison v. Heller, 132 Colo. 415, 289 P.2d 160 (1955); Phipps v. Hurd, 133 Colo. 547, 297 P.2d 1048 (1956). Generally stating that evidence was insufficient to support trial court's determinations, and failing to make specific arguments, identify supporting facts, or set forth specific authorities to support contention of error was insufficient to authorize consideration upon review. People ex rel. D.B-J., 89 P.3d 530 (Colo. App. 2004). Court may decline to notice errors where statement is deficient. Where a proper statement of grounds for reversal is lacking, or where it fails to direct attention to the alleged error, the supreme court may decline to notice alleged errors presented in the argument. Allison v. Heller, 132 Colo. 415, 289 P.2d 160 (1955). Brief must direct attention of court to alleged error. A statement of grounds required under section (d) of this rule that fails to direct attention to any alleged error is meaningless and does not comply with this rule. Allison v. Heller, 132 Colo. 415, 289 P.2d 160 (1955). Even though matter alleged to be error is mentioned in the defendant's motion for new trial, it was not mentioned in his brief to the supreme court, and therefore, it was waived. People v. Pleasant, 182 Colo. 144, 511 P.2d 488 (1973). Contemporaneous objection required. An appellate court need not review errors where counsel fails to make a contemporaneous objection. City & County of Denver v. Hinsey, 177 Colo. 178, 493 P.2d 348 (1972); People v. Chavez, 179 Colo. 316, 500 P.2d 365 (1972); People v. Routa, 180 Colo. 386, 505 P.2d 1298 (1973). Where defendant fails to object during trial to statements made by prosecutor, he waives further objection as matter of right on appeal. People v. Jacobs, 179 Colo. 182, 499 P.2d 615 (1972). Absent defect affecting substantial right. The failure to timely object will preclude an appellate from reversing on the ground that there is an absence of a showing of defects affecting the substantial rights. Crespin v. People, 175 Colo. 509, 488 P.2d 877 (1971). Lack of contemporaneous objection at trial constitutes waiver of objections to admission of evidence, and issues may not be raised on appeal; if they are, they will not be considered unless errors are so fundamental as to seriously prejudice basic rights of defendant. People v. Vigil, 180 Colo. 104, 502 P.2d 418 (1972). Or where contemporaneous objection impossible. Where purported impropriety of comments in prosecutor's opening statement cannot be alleged until prosecutor fails to support statements during presentation of case, and strict contemporaneous objection by defense counsel following opening statement is therefore impossible, the failure to object immediately to prosecutor's statements does not constitute waiver of right to object as matter of right on appeal. People v. Jacobs, 179 Colo. 182, 499 P.2d 615 (1972). This rule modifies C.R.C.P. 51. C.R.C.P. 51, providing that only grounds specified in objections to instructions will be considered on appeal is modified by this rule permitting the supreme court at its discretion to notice any error of record, and such discretion will be exercised when necessary to do justice. Warner v. Barnard, 134 Colo. 337, 304 P.2d 898 (1956). Court may notice error of record on its own motion. Although counsel are confined to the points properly specified, the supreme court, under special circumstances, frequently notices error appearing of record and takes appropriate action to protect the right of a litigant to have his cause determined under well-established principles of law. Warner v. Barnard, 134 Colo. 337, 304 P.2d 898 (1956); Mt. Emmons Mining Co. v. Town of Crested Butte, 690 P.2d 231 (Colo. 1984); People v. Herrera, 734 P.2d 136 (Colo. App. 1986). The discretionary power of the supreme court to notice any error appearing of record is granted by this rule even where the plaintiff in the lower court failed to make appropriate objections and exceptions thereto. Mumm v. Adam, 134 Colo. 493, 307 P.2d 797 (1957). Under the provisions of this rule the supreme court may notice error appearing on the face of the record when in the interest of justice to a litigant it is appropriate to do so. Kendall v. Hargrave, 142 Colo. 120, 349 P.2d 993 (1960). The right and duty of an appellate court to notice error on appeal and to reverse under section (d) of this rule has generally been applied to those situations where the error could be characterized as "fundamental" or where it is the cause of a "miscarriage of justice". Polster v. Griff's of Am., Inc., 184 Colo. 418, 520 P.2d 745 (1974). Such as error in amount of verdict. An error in the amount of a verdict not properly before the supreme court, as for excessive damages, is one which is of enough importance to consider on the supreme court's own motion when such a course is considered necessary to do complete justice. Lamborn v. Eshom, 132 Colo. 242, 287 P.2d 43 (1955). Where counsel failed to tender suitable instructions on the measure of damages in a personal injury action, it was the duty of the court to so instruct on its own motion. In such circumstances, the supreme court exercised its discretion in noticing error appearing on the face of the record even though not raised by the parties. Kendall v. Hargrave, 142 Colo. 120, 349 P.2d 993 (1960). Error noticed on record was not prejudicial. Clark v. Bunnell, 172 Colo. 32, 470 P.2d 42 (1970). Ground waived in motion for new trial unavailable on appeal. In an action to foreclose a deed of trust, where defendants' motion for a new trial waived the defense of tender before the trial court, it cannot be reasserted in the supreme court on appeal. Bernklau v. Stevens, 150 Colo. 187, 371 P.2d 765 (1962). When defendant claims that evidence is insufficient to convict, an appellate court should view evidence in light most favorable to prosecution. People v. Vigil, 180 Colo. 104, 502 P.2d 418 (1972).
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. 11; 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.