Colo. R. App. P. 49
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:
C.A.R. 49
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 jurisdiction by rule of court. Bill Dreiling Motor Co. v. Court of Appeals, 171 Colo. 448, 468 P.2d 37 (1970). Certiorari is proper remedy to protect substantial right. An original proceeding in the nature of certiorari under this rule, when directed to an endangered, fundamentally substantive and substantial right, is maintainable and recognized as a proper remedy. Potashnik v. Pub. Serv. Co., 126 Colo. 98, 247 P.2d 137 (1952); Lucas v. District Court, 140 Colo. 510, 345 P.2d 1064 (1959). Where usual review does not afford adequate protection. The power of certiorari is exercisable where usual review on appeal would not afford adequate protection to substantive rights of the petitioners. Sutterfield v. District Court, 165 Colo. 225, 438 P.2d 236 (1968). Certiorari may be granted to determine a policy. Where no well-defined policy has emerged on a subject, the court will grant certiorari in order to make such a determination. Mile High Fence Co. v. Radovich, 175 Colo. 537, 489 P.2d 308 (1971). Petition for certiorari is addressed to sound judicial discretion, and denial does not constitute a determination of the issues on the merits. Menefee v. City & County of Denver 190 Colo. 163, 544 P.2d 382 (1976). The issuance of a writ of certiorari is always discretionary. Sutterfield v. District Court, 165 Colo. 225, 438 P.2d 236 (1968). Review of interlocutory orders. The supreme court has the power under § 3 of art. VI, Colo. Const., to issue certiorari to review interlocutory orders of lower courts. Sutterfield v. District Court, 165 Colo. 225, 438 P.2d 236 (1968). The proper proceeding for relief from an interlocutory order is by certiorari. Lucas v. District Court, 140 Colo. 510, 345 P.2d 1064 (1959). Review of eminent domain interlocutory order. Within the period of stay of execution granted by a trial court, the owners of property being condemned, not having the right of review of an interlocutory order on appeal, may file original action by way of certiorari in the supreme court, alleging that otherwise they are without remedy whatsoever to protect their property from seizure under an order of a district court, which they contend is without lawful authority. Lucas v. District Court, 140 Colo. 510, 345 P.2d 1064 (1959). Pretrial proceedings reviewable. The denial of an asserted right in pretrial proceedings, not otherwise reviewable, may be determined by means of an original proceeding in certiorari in the supreme court. Lucas v. District Court, 140 Colo. 510, 345 P.2d 1064 (1959). Certiorari granted where judgment would render question moot. Application for an original writ of mandamus or certiorari in the supreme court is the only procedure by which to test the validity of a trial court's ruling where the question involved, if permitted to await final judgment, would become moot. Lucas v. District Court, 140 Colo. 510, 345 P.2d 1064 (1959). Certiorari to review joinder of claims was issued where all parties would be put to unnecessary delay and expense were it required that one or both of these tort claims be fully tried before determining whether the claims should have remained joined in the first instance. Should plaintiffs obtain a favorable judgment in both lawsuits, none of the parties will be in a position to raise the procedural question of separate trials posed by this original proceeding. Sutterfield v. District Court, 165 Colo. 225, 438 P.2d 236 (1968). Amended answers ordered to be struck. In an original proceeding for relief as in certiorari, it was held that the district court should strike amended and amending answers which it allowed to be filed subsequent to the supreme court's remanding order which mentioned the specific pleadings out of which the trial court should ascertain the issues and on which it should conduct the trial. People ex rel. Henderson v. Greeley Nat'l Bank, 112 Colo. 274, 148 P.2d 580 (1944). Review of superior court's reversal of county court. The supreme court may review by certiorari a superior court's reversal of a county court judgment. People v. Dee, 638 P.2d 749 (Colo. 1981). The appellate review of county court judgments by the superior court is subject to ultimate review by the supreme court, since any party has the right to petition for a writ of certiorari. People v. Superior Court, 175 Colo. 391, 488 P.2d 66 (1971). Certiorari dismissed where denial of charge of venue may be considered on appeal. Under applicable rules of civil procedure, where a motion for change of venue has been filed by defendants and said motion has been denied, the defendants can thereafter file an answer and proceed to trial without waiving the question of error based upon the denial of said motion. An original proceeding in the nature of a writ of certiorari to review the denial of a motion for change of venue by a district court will be dismissed. Colo. State Bd. of Exam'rs of Architects v. District Court, 126 Colo. 340, 249 P.2d 146 (1952). Where conviction necessarily involves only a factual issue, certiorari to review such conviction will be dismissed as improvidently granted. Erickson v. City & County of Denver, 179 Colo. 412, 500 P.2d 1183 (1972). Denial of a petition for certiorari in a criminal case means nothing more than that the supreme court has declared that the case is not properly postured for further appellate review. Menefee v. City & County of Denver, 190 Colo. 163, 544 P.2d 382 (1976). Where a decision of a reviewing court could not result in further proceedings against the petitioner, he has no standing to prosecute appellate proceedings beyond the court where his acquittal occurred. Garcia v. City of Pueblo, 176 Colo. 96, 489 P.2d 200 (1971). Moot question not reviewed. Where the question involved does not have that degree of public importance to justify review of a moot question, it is properly dismissed. People in Interest of P. L. V., 176 Colo. 342, 490 P.2d 685 (1971). Appellate courts are bound by the jury's findings where there is sufficient competent evidence in the record to support the finding, where the jury makes the finding on conflicting evidence, and where the jury has been correctly instructed by the trial court. Vigil v. Pine, 176 Colo. 384, 490 P.2d 934 (1971). Applied in McGregor v. People, 176 Colo. 309, 490 P.2d 287 (1971); Bd. of County Comm'rs v. Fifty-first Gen. Ass'y, 198 Colo. 302, 599 P.2d 887 (1979).