C.A.R. 31

History

Source: (a) amended March 17, 1994, effective July 1, 1994; (b) and (c) amended May 12, 1994, effective July 1, 1994; (a) amended and adopted December 14, 2011, effective January 1, 2012, for all cases pending on or filed on or after January 1, 2012, pursuant to C.R.C.P. 1(b); (a) and (b) amended and (c) repealed and effective June 25, 2015. ANNOTATION Law reviews. For article, ‘‘The Problem of Delay in the Colorado Court of Appeals’’, see 58 Den. L.J. 1 (1980). Purpose and observance of rule. This rule is for the proper dispatch of business, and its observance is required in the interests of liti- gants generally. Wilson v. People, 25 Colo. 375, 55 P. 721 (1898); People v. J. H. Cooper Enter- prises, 111 Colo. 338, 141 P.2d 414 (1943). Briefs may not be filed whenever or wher- ever counsel may find it convenient. Smith v. Woodall, 129 Colo. 435, 270 P.2d 746 (1954); Freeman v. Cross, 134 Colo. 437, 305 P.2d 759 (1957). Burden is clearly on appellants to make a timely filing of their opening brief pursuant to this rule and § 24-4-106(4), C.R.S. Warren Vil- lage, Inc. v. Bd. of Assmt. Appeals, 619 P.2d 60 (Colo. 1980); Wilkinson v. Motor V ehicle Div., 634 P.2d 1016 (Colo. App. 1981). Right to file answer brief is lost where no request for extension of time is made within the time limit the brief was due, except upon a showing that failure to act was the result of excusable neglect. Fraka v. Malernee, 129 Colo. 87, 267 P.2d 651 (1954). Court’s discretion to dismiss. Dismissal for failure to comply with statutory time limitations for filing briefs is within the discretion of the trial court. Wilkinson v. Motor V ehicle Div., 634 P.2d 1016 (Colo. App. 1981). Time for filing when motion to dismiss appeal denied. Time for filing an answer brief on the merits, where a motion to dismiss an appeal is denied, shall commence to run on the date of the announcement of the opinion; other- wise, this rule will control in the matter of filing briefs. Johnson v. George, 119 Colo. 153, 200 P.2d 931 (1948). Judicial review of agency action pursuant to § 24-4-106(4), C.R.S., is subject to the time limitations specified in section (a) of this rule. Dismissal for failure to comply with statutory time limitations for filing briefs is left within the trial court’s discretion. DuPuis v. Charnes, 668 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1983). Agreement between parties extending time not binding on court. A court is not bound by an agreement between parties which extends the time for filing briefs. Wilkinson v. Motor V e- hicle Div., 634 P.2d 1016 (Colo. App. 1981). Applied in Smith v. County of El Paso, 42 Colo. App. 316, 593 P.2d 979 (1979); People v. Boivin, 632 P.2d 1038 (Colo. App. 1981).