C.A.R. 52

History

Source: (b) amended June 4, 1987, effective January 1, 1988; (a) amended and effective May 17, 1990; (b) amended July 11, 1991, effective July 1, 1991; (b) amended and adopted November 20, 1998, effective January 1, 1999; (b)(3) amended and effective February 7, 2008; (b)(3) amended and effective May 28, 2009; (a) and (b)(3) 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); entire rule amended and effective June 7, 2018, effective July 1, 2018; (b)(1) corrected and effective June 7, 2019; (b)(1) amended February 24, 2022, effective July 1, 2022 (Rule Change 2022(05)). COMMENTS C.A.R. 52 has been revised to recognize that petitions for rehearing of a district court’s re- view of a county court judgment are permis- sible, and if a petition for rehearing is filed, the petition for writ of certiorari must be filed within 28 days after the district court’s denial of the petition for rehearing. C.A.R. 52(b)(3) is a new subsection and is consistent with the petition for writ of certiorari requirements set forth in C.A.R. 3.4(l). ANNOTATION Law reviews. For article ‘‘A Summary of Colorado Supreme Court Internal Operating Procedures’’, see 11 Colo. Law, 356 (1982). For article, ‘‘Appeals of County Court, Municipal Court, and Magistrate Rulings’’, see 47 Colo. Law. 32 (Oct. 2018). When a petition for rehearing of a munici- pal court judgment is timely filed in the dis- trict court, the district court judgment will not become final for purposes of this rule until the district court denies the petition. City of Aurora v. Rhodes, 689 P.2d 603 (Colo. 1984). When a petition for rehearing of a county court judgment is timely filed in the district court, the district court judgment does not be- come final for purposes of the 42-day period to file a petition for writ of certiorari under this rule until the district court denies the petition for rehearing. People v. Penn, 2016 CO 32, 379 P.3d 298. If a party files a conditional cross-petition for certiorari of issues not reached unless the underlying judgment is disturbed, there is no requirement that the party first file a petition for rehearing in the court of appeals. Farmers Group, Inc. v. Williams, 805 P.2d 419 (Colo. 1991). Health maintenance organization (HMO) could not seek certiorari where HMO was dismissed from suit on its motion for summary judgment, was not a party in the court of ap- peals, was not substantially aggrieved by the disposition of the case by the court of appeals, and did not file the prerequisite petition for rehearing. Colo. Permanente Medical Group v. Evans, 926 P.2d 1218 (Colo. 1996). Applied in Honey v. Ranchers & Farmers Livestock Auction Co., 191 Colo. 503, 553 P.2d 799 (1976); Wiggins v. People, 199 Colo. 341, 608 P.2d 348 (1980); People v. Dee, 638 P.2d 749 (Colo. 1981); Byrd v. People, 58 P.3d 50 (Colo. 2002).