CO · rules
C.M.C.R. 257
Rules of Court
All municipal court local rules, including local municipal procedures and standing orders
having the effect of municipal court local rules, enacted before February 1, 1992, are hereby
repealed. Each municipal court, by a majority of its judges, may from time to time propose
municipal court local rules and amendments of municipal court local rules. Proposed rules and
amendments shall not be inconsistent with the Colorado Rules of Municipal Court Procedure or
with any directive of the Supreme Court regarding the conduct of formal judicial proceedings in
municipal courts. A proposed local rule or amendment shall not be effective until it is approved
by the Supreme Court. To obtain approval, three copies of any proposed local rule or
amendment shall be submitted to the Supreme Court through the Clerk of the Supreme Court.
Reasonable uniformity of municipal court local rules is required. The Supreme Court’s approval
of a municipal court local rule or local procedure shall not preclude review of that rule or
procedure under the law or circumstances of a particular case. Nothing in this rule is intended
to affect the authority of a municipal court to adopt internal administrative procedures not
relating to the conduct of formal judicial proceedings as prescribed by the Colorado Rules of
Municipal Court Procedure.
History
Source: Entire chapter amended June 30, 1988, effective January 1, 1989; entire rule amended January 9, 1992, effective February 1, 1992; entire rule amended and effective January 6, 2022 (Rule Change 2022(03)). ANNOTATION Effect of failure to submit proposed rules to supreme court. The fact that a municipal court had not submitted a proposed rule dealing with amendments to a ‘‘summons and com- plaint’’ to the Colorado supreme court pursuant to section (a) did not mean that the municipal court was without authority to permit amend- ments. Paukovich v. County Court, 44 Colo. App. 208, 615 P.2d 54 (1980). Absent rules, power to be exercised in court’s discretion. The absence of procedural rules as to the exercise of power to permit the consolidation of charges, to permit amendments thereto, or to permit the charging party to with- draw any one or more of the charges made, does not destroy the power, but merely indi- cates that the manner of its exercise rests in the sound discretion of the court. Paukovich v. County Court, 44 Colo. App. 208, 615 P.2d 54 (1980). The power to permit the consolidation of charges, to permit amendments thereto, or to permit the charging party to withdraw any one or more of the charges made need not be ex- pressly granted as each is inherently a part of the power to receive and hear such charges. Paukovich v. County Court, 44 Colo. App. 208, 615 P.2d 54 (1980).
Provenance
- Source
- content.leg.colorado.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-15
- Edition
- 2026-09-15
- Content hash
6507a4642c601f79d18f38458a027d7a266c3a36902b4f2db5337188474027ba
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.