CO Code § 13-4-102 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure|Article 4 - Court of Appeals|§ 13-4-102. Jurisdiction

  Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding, the court of appeals shall have initial jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments of, and interlocutory appeals of certified questions of law in civil cases pursuant to section 13-4-102.1 from, the district courts, the probate court of the city and county of Denver, and the juvenile court of the city and county of Denver, except in:   Repealed.    Cases in which a statute, a municipal charter provision, or an ordinance has been declared unconstitutional;    Cases concerned with decisions or actions of the public utilities commission;    Water cases involving priorities or adjudications;    Writs of habeas corpus;    Cases appealed from the county court to the district court, as provided in section 13-6-310;    Review actions of the Colorado dental board in refusing to issue or renew or in suspending or revoking a license to practice dentistry or dental hygiene, as provided in section 12-220-208;    Cases appealed from the district court granting or denying postconviction relief in a case in which a sentence of death has been imposed for an offense charged prior to July 1, 2020.       The court of appeals has initial jurisdiction to:   Review awards or actions of the industrial claim appeals office, as provided in articles 43 and 74 of title 8, C.R.S.;    Review orders of the banking board granting or denying charters for new state banks, as provided in article 102 of title 11, C.R.S.;    (Deleted by amendment,L. 2006, p. 761, § 19, effective July 1, 2006.)    Review all final actions and orders appropriate for judicial review of the Colorado podiatry board, as provided in section 12-290-115;    Review all final actions and orders appropriate for judicial review of the Colorado state board of chiropractic examiners, as provided in section 12-215-122;    Review actions of the Colorado medical board in refusing to grant or in revoking or suspending a license or in placing the holder thereof on probation, as provided in section 12-240-127;    Review actions of the Colorado dental board in refusing to issue or renew or in suspending or revoking a license to practice dentistry or dental hygiene, as provided in section 12-220-137;    Review all final actions and orders appropriate for judicial review of the state board of nursing, as provided in articles 255 and 295 of title 12;    Review actions of the state board of optometry in refusing to grant or renew, revoking, or suspending a license, issuing a letter of admonition, or placing a licensee on probation or under supervision, as provided by section 12-275-122 (2);    Review all final actions and orders appropriate for judicial review of the director of the division of professions and occupations, as provided in article 285 of title 12;    Review all final actions and orders appropriate for judicial review of the state board of pharmacy, as provided in section 12-280-128;    Review decisions of the board of education of a school district in proceedings for the dismissal of a teacher, as provided in section 22-63-302 (10), C.R.S.;    Review final decisions or orders of the Colorado real estate commission, as provided in parts 2 and 5 of article 10 of title 12;  (m.5) Repealed.     Review final decisions and orders of the Colorado civil rights commission, as provided in parts 3, 4, and 7 of article 34 of title 24, C.R.S.;    Repealed.    Review decisions of the state personnel board, as provided in section 24-50-125.4, C.R.S.;    Review final actions and orders appropriate for judicial review of the state electrical board, as provided in article 115 of title 12;    Review all final actions and orders appropriate for judicial review of the state board of licensure for architects, professional engineers, and professional land surveyors, as provided in section 12-120-407 (4);    Review final actions and orders of the boards, as defined in section 12-245-202 (1), that are appropriate for judicial review and final actions;    (Deleted by amendment,L. 2008, p. 426, § 25, effective August 5, 2008.)    Review all final actions and orders appropriate for judicial review of the coal mine board of examiners, as provided in section 34-22-107 (8), C.R.S.;    Review final actions and orders of the director of the division of professions and occupations appropriate for judicial review, as provided in section 12-145-116;    Review final actions and orders appropriate for judicial review of the examining board of plumbers;    Review decisions of the board of assessment appeals, as provided in section 39-8-108 (2), C.R.S.;       Repealed.    (Deleted by amendment,L. 98, p. 818, § 14, effective August 5, 1998.)    Repealed.    Review final actions and orders appropriate for judicial review of the securities commissioner, as provided in section 11-59-117, C.R.S.;    Review final actions and orders appropriate for judicial review of the commissioner of insurance, pursuant to title 10, C.R.S.;    Review final actions and orders appropriate for judicial review of the Colorado racing commission, as provided in section 44-32-507 (4);    Review final actions and orders appropriate for judicial review of the Colorado passenger tramway safety board, as provided in section 12-150-109;    Repealed.    Review final actions and orders appropriate for judicial review of the state board of veterinary medicine, as provided in section 12-315-113;    Review all final actions and orders appropriate for judicial review of the director of the division of professions and occupations, as provided in section 12-225-109 (4);    Review all final actions and orders appropriate for judicial review of the executive director of the department of labor and employment, as provided in section 8-20-104, C.R.S.;    Review all final actions and orders appropriate for judicial review of the director of the division of professions and occupations in the department of regulatory agencies, as provided in section 12-270-114 (8);    Repealed.    Review final decisions or orders of the administrator as provided in article 20 of title 5; and    [ ] Review final decisions or orders of the administrator as provided in article 21 of title 5.       The court of appeals shall have authority to issue any writs, directives, orders, and mandates necessary to the determination of cases within its jurisdiction.    (Deleted by amendment,L. 95, p. 235, § 4, effective April 17, 1995.)    Editor's note: Subsection (2)(nn) is effective January 1, 2022.  History. Source: L. 69: P. 265, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 37-21-2 . L. 73: P. 358, § 2. L. 74: (1)(a) repealed, p. 236, § 4, effective July 1. L. 75: (2) amended, p. 555, § 2, effective April 9; (2) amended, p. 459, § 9, effective July 1. L. 77: (2) amended, p. 717, § 2, effective July 1. L. 78: (2) amended, p. 302, § 4, effective July 1. L. 79: (2) amended, p. 919, § 1, effective July 1; (2) amended, p. 803, § 5, effective July 1; (2) amended, p. 553, § 1, effective March 1, 1980. L. 80: (1)(g) amended, p. 438, § 2, effective January 1, 1981. L. 83: (2) amended, p. 473, § 4, effective April 5. L. 85: (2) amended, p. 566, § 12, effective July 1; (2) amended, p. 484, § 2, effective July 1; (2) amended, p. 532, § 12, effective July 1; (2) amended, p. 505, § 21, effective July 1; (2) amended, p. 510, § 8, effective July 1; (2) amended, p. 538, § 13, effective July 1; IP(1) and (1)(f) amended, p. 570, § 3, effective November 14, 1986. L. 86: (2) amended, p. 978, § 9, effective April 3; (2) amended, p. 653, § 31, effective July 1; (2) amended, p. 498, § 116, effective July 1; (2) amended, p. 621, § 34, effective July 1; (2) amended, p. 1217, § 14, effective July 1. L. 88: (2)(x) added, p. 1305, § 14, effective April 29; (2)(o) and (2)(p) amended and (2)(u) added, p. 1199, § 9, effective May 3; (2)(o) and (2)(p) amended and (2)(r) added, p. 470, § 12, effective July 1; (2)(o) amended and (2)(s) and (2)(t) added, p. 568, § 6, effective July 1; (2)(o) and (2)(p) amended and (2)(v) added, p. 582, § 2, effective July 1; (2)(q) added, p. 502, § 22, effective July 1; (2)(w) added, p. 593, § 19, effective July 1. L. 89: (2)(m) amended, p. 744, § 23, effective April 3; (2)(y), (2)(z), and (2)(aa) added, pp. 728, 747, 406, §§ 31, 4, 6, effective July 1. L. 89, 1st Ex. Sess.: (2)(bb) added, p. 13, § 3, effective July 7. L. 90: (2)(l) amended, p. 1128, § 2, effective July 1. L. 91: (2)(cc) added, p. 2425, § 4, effective June 8; (2)(a) amended and (4) added, p. 1337, § 54, effective July 1. L. 92: (2)(dd) added, p. 1613, § 167, effective May 20; (1)(b) amended, p. 271, § 1, effective July 1. L. 93: (2)(ee) added, p. 1235, § 2, effective July 1; (2)(ee) added, p. 1033, § 14, effective July 1; (2)(ff) added, p. 1532, § 1, effective July 1. L. 94: (2)(y) repealed, p. 705, § 7, effective April 19; (1)(h) added, p. 1474, § 3, effective July 1. L. 95: (2)(a) and (4) amended, p. 235, § 4, effective April 17; (2)(f) amended, p. 1072, § 24, effective July 1; (2)(aa) amended, p. 419, § 6, effective July 1. L. 98: (2)(s) amended, p. 1158, § 28, effective July 1; (2)(gg) added, p. 1186, § 4, effective July 1; (2)(o) and (2)(aa) amended, p. 818, § 14, effective August 5. L. 2001: (2)(ii) added, p. 1260, § 8, effective June 5; (2)(hh) added, p. 480, § 13, effective July 1. L. 2003: (2)(jj) added, p. 1828, § 21, effective May 21; (2)(b) amended, p. 1209, § 18, effective July 1. L. 2004: (2)(c) amended, p. 1310, § 52, effective May 28; (2)(g) amended, p. 857, § 2, effective July 1. L. 2006: (2)(c) and (2)(r) amended, p. 761, § 19, effective July 1. L. 2008: (2)(kk) added, p. 830, § 3, effective July 1; (2)(s) and (2)(t) amended, p. 426, § 25, effective August 5. L. 2010: (2)(f) amended,(HB 10-1260), ch. 403, p. 1985, § 70, effective July 1; IP(1) amended,(HB 10-1395), ch. 364, p. 1719, § 1, effective August 11. L. 2011: IP(2) and (2)(i) amended,(SB 11-094), ch. 129, p. 451, § 29, effective April 22; IP(2) and (2)(s) amended,(SB 11-187), ch. 285, p. 1326, § 66, effective July 1. L. 2012: (2)(z) amended,(HB 12-1297), ch. 139, p. 506, § 4, effective April 26; (2)(k) amended,(HB 12-1311), ch. 281, p. 1617, § 33, effective July 1. L. 2013: (2)(m.5) added,(HB 13-1277), ch. 352, p. 2054, § 4, effective January 1, 2015. L. 2014: (2)(kk) amended and (2)(ll) added,(HB 14-1398), ch. 353, p. 1646, § 3, effective June 6; (2)(g) amended,(HB 14-1227), ch. 363, p. 1736, § 41, effective July 1. L. 2016: (1)(g) amended,(SB 16-189), ch. 210, p. 758, § 22, effective June 6. L. 2018: (2)(gg) amended,(SB 18-1375), ch. 274, p. 1696, § 9, effective May 29; (2)(ee) amended,(HB 18-1024), ch. 26, p. 321, § 8, effective October 1; (2)(gg) amended,(SB 18-036), ch. 34, p. 377, § 4, effective October 1. L. 2019: (2)(o) repealed,(SB 19-241), ch. 390, p. 3463, § 6, effective August 2; (2)(mm) added,(SB 19-002), ch. 157, p. 1872, § 4, effective August 2; (2)(d), (2)(e), (2)(f), (2)(g), (2)(h), (2)(i), (2)(j), (2)(k), (2)(m), (2)(o), (2)(q), (2)(r), (2)(s), (2)(v), (2)(bb), (2)(ff), (2)(hh), (2)(ii), and (2)(kk) amended,(HB 19-1172), ch. 136, p. 1661, § 66, effective October 1. L. 2020: (1)(h) amended,(SB 20-100), ch. 61, p. 204, § 2, effective March 23; (2)(m.5) repealed,(HB 20-1402), ch. 216, p. 1045, § 23, effective June 30; (2)(bb) repealed,(HB 20-1183), ch. 157, p. 699, § 49, effective July 1; (2)(gg) repealed,(HB 20-1001), ch. 302, p. 1516, § 13, effective July 14; (1)(g) amended,(HB 20-1056), ch. 64, p. 262, § 4, effective September 14; (2)(kk) amended and (2)(ll) repealed,(HB 20-1217), ch. 93, p. 369, § 3, effective September 14. L. 2021: (2)(kk) amended,(SB 21-003), ch. 4, p. 29, § 6, effective January 21; (2)(nn) added,(HB 21-1282), ch. 482, p. 3444, § 2, effective January 1, 2022.    Editor's note:    Amendments to subsection (2) by House Bill 79-1234 and Senate Bill 79-038 were harmonized with Senate Bill 79-099, effective March 1, 1980.    Amendments to subsection (2) by Senate Bill 85-013, Senate Bill 85-049, House Bill 85-1030, House Bill 85-1031, House Bill 85-1032, and House Bill 85-1209 were harmonized.    Amendments to subsection (2) by Senate Bill 86-011, Senate Bill 86-012, Senate Bill 86-165, House Bill 86-1029, and House Bill 86-1268 were harmonized.    Amendments to subsection (2)(ee) by House Bill 93-1034 and House Bill 93-1268 were harmonized.    Amendments to subsection (2)(gg) by HB 18-1375 and SB 18-036 were harmonized.    Subsection (2)(o) was amended in HB 19-1172, effective October 1, 2019. However, those amendments were superseded by the repeal of subsection (2)(o) in SB 19-241, effective August 2, 2019.    Section 4(2) of chapter 482 (HB 21-1282), Session Laws of Colorado 2021, provides that the act changing this section applies to conduct occurring on or after January 1, 2022.     Cross references:   For the legislative declaration contained in the 2003 act enacting subsection (2)(jj), see section 1 of chapter 279, Session Laws of Colorado 2003. For the legislative declaration in SB 19-002, see section 1 of chapter 157, Session Laws of Colorado 2019.   ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, “The Problem of Delay in the Colorado Court of Appeals”, see 58 Den. L.J. 1 (1980). For article, “Knowing When to Change Trains: The Ins and Outs of Interlocutory Appeals”, see 41 Colo. Law. 31 (June 2012).   General assembly may change appellate subject matter jurisdiction. The changes brought about by this section, § 13-4-108 , and § 13-4-110 pertain to the subject matter, i.e., jurisdiction of the supreme court and court of appeals and, as such, the changes are within the authority of the general assembly. Bill Dreiling Motor Co. v. Court of Appeals, 171 Colo. 448 , 468 P.2d 37 (1970).   Statutes pertaining to the creation of 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).   A court cannot adopt a rule that changes jurisdiction. The supreme court has authority to adopt rules for the regulation of the business of the courts and the procedure to be followed by litigants in doing that business. Nonetheless, absent constitutional authority, it is equally clear that this court cannot adopt a rule that changes jurisdiction of a court contrary to a provision of a statute. Bill Dreiling Motor Co. v. Court of Appeals, 171 Colo. 448 , 468 P.2d 37 (1970).   Where the general assembly has enacted statutes prescribing appellate procedure, this court may not modify the jurisdiction granted it by statute. People v. Meyers, 43 Colo. App. 63, 598 P.2d 526 (1979).   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. 50-57. Bill Dreiling Motor Co. v. Court of Appeals, 171 Colo. 448 , 468 P.2d 37 (1970).   Court of appeals has no jurisdiction over constitutionality of a city charter. Where claimant contends that a city charter provision is unconstitutional, the Colorado court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to decide the issue. McCamant v. City & County of Denver, 31 Colo. App. 287, 501 P.2d 142 (1972).   Jurisdiction of court of appeals to hear appeal. Whether the court of appeals has jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the district court, or any part thereof, depends upon whether the matters presented were properly before the district court. Zaharia v. County Court ex rel. County of Jefferson, 673 P.2d 378 (Colo. App. 1983).   An appeal that is filed before the entry of final judgment does not remove jurisdiction from the trial court. People v. Rosales, 134 P.3d 429 (Colo. App. 2005).   The final judgment of the district court, following a trial de novo, is subject to review by the court of appeals under both § 13-6-310 and this section. Bovard v. People, 99 P.3d 585 (Colo. 2004).   This section provides that court of appeals does not have initial jurisdiction over appeals from summary proceeding under certain election statutes, but statute does not bar court of appeals' jurisdiction after the supreme court has declined to exercise its initial jurisdiction. Zivian v. Brooke-Hitching, 28 P.3d 970 (Colo. App. 2001).   Right to appeal to courts from special assessment for public improvements does not exist except by statute. Orchard Court Dev. Co. v. City of Boulder, 182 Colo. 361 , 513 P.2d 199 (1973).   Subsection (1)(h) expressly divests the court of appeals of jurisdiction over appeals from postconviction proceedings in cases in which the death penalty has been imposed. When this provision is combined with § 16-12-101.5 and §§ 16-12-201 to 16-12-210 , the legislature has made plain that it does not want the court of appeals to resolve issues arising from cases in which the death penalty has been imposed. People v. Owens, 219 P.3d 379 (Colo. App. 2009).   Subsection (2)(x) does not, by its language, limit the court of appeals' jurisdiction to review board of assessment appeals decisions that are not related to property valuation. Prop. Tax Adjustment Specialists, Inc. v. Mesa County Bd. of Comm'rs, 956 P.2d 1277 (Colo. App. 1998).   Final judgment defined. A final judgment is defined as 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. D.H. v. People, 192 Colo. 542 , 561 P.2d 5 (1977); Harding Glass Co. v. Jones, 640 P.2d 1123 (Colo. 1982); People in Interest of S.M.O., 931 P.2d 572 (Colo. App. 1996).   A decision on the merits is a final judgment for appeal purposes despite any outstanding issue of attorney fees and certification pursuant to C.R.C.P. 54 (b) is not a prerequisite to appellate review of the merits of a case if a judgment has been entered and only the issue of attorney fees remains to be determined. Baldwin v. Bright Mortg. Co., 757 P.2d 1072 (Colo. 1988).   However, a judgment under § 10-3-1116 (1) is not final until a determination of attorney fees and costs is made because attorney fees and costs are components of damages under the statute. Hall v. Am. Standard Ins. Co. of Wis., 2012 COA 201 , 292 P.3d 1196.   An arbitrator's award is not a “final judgment” within the meaning of this section. S. Wash. Assoc. v. Flanagan, 859 P.2d 217 (Colo. 1992).   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).   Court of appeals jurisdiction is limited to review of final orders, and the parties cannot confer subject matter jurisdiction upon the court by consent. Arevalo v. Colo. Dept. of Human Servs., 72 P.3d 436 (Colo. App. 2003).   Court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to review the trial court's interpretation and enforcement of a settlement agreement until the trial court either certifies its orders as final pursuant to C.R.C.P. 54(b) or issues an order that outlines the parties' exact responsibilities pursuant to the settlement agreement and services plan and does not allow the trial court to further modify or vacate these responsibilities. Arevalo v. Colo. Dept. of Human Servs., 72 P.3d 436 (Colo. App. 2003).   A judgment of conviction is not final until sentence is imposed. Absent a specific finding that the victim did not suffer a pecuniary loss, restitution is a mandatory part of the sentence. Thus, absent such a finding, sentencing is not final until restitution is ordered. People v. Rosales, 134 P.3d 429 (Colo. App. 2005).   Order of dismissal without prejudice is a final judgment when the applicable statute of limitations period has expired. SMLL, L.L.C. v. Daly, 128 P.3d 266 (Colo. App. 2005).   A transfer order from juvenile to district court is not a final judgment from which appeal lies because it is interlocutory in nature and in no sense completely determines the rights of the parties. D.H. v. People, 192 Colo. 542 , 561 P.2d 5 (1977).   Juvenile court's order denying a tribe's request to transfer jurisdiction to a tribal court is a final, appealable order based on the collateral order doctrine. People in Interest of L.R.B., 2019 COA 85 , __ P.3d __ (decided prior to 2019 amendment to § 19-1-126 ).   Remand for further proceedings before city council of case against ordinance was final appealable order. Where the city council in enacting a special assessment ordinance had made all the required findings and in an action to enjoin the assessment, the district court, without explicitly stating whether it was affirming or reversing the council's action, remanded the case to the council for further proceedings, such action by the district court constituted final judgment and the court of appeals had jurisdiction to consider any appeal from the district court's order. Cline v. City of Boulder, 35 Colo. App. 349, 532 P.2d 770 (1975).   Trial court's order on attorney fees was a final judgment and could have been reviewed by the court of appeals if a party had appealed some other aspect of the case and the matter was otherwise properly before the court. Bye v. District Court, 701 P.2d 56 (Colo. 1985).   However, court of appeals has initial jurisdiction to review an order regarding attorney fees that has been certified as final by the trial court, even though other claims in the underlying action are pending before the trial court. Steven A. Gall, P.C. v. District Court, 965 P.2d 1268 (Colo. 1998).   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).   An order dismissing a plaintiff's complaint based on C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) resolved the rights of the parties as to the claims in the complaint and left nothing for the court to do, so it was a final and appealable order. Scott v. Scott, 2018 COA 25 , 428 P.3d 626.   A plaintiff cannot create final action for purposes of appeal by dismissing without prejudice the case's remaining claims after the trial court dismissed with prejudice the case's other claims via a partial motion to dismiss. Wilson v. Advisorlaw LLC, 2020 COA 122 , __ P.3d __.   No review of issue raised first time on appeal. Questioning the constitutionality of a statute for the first time in an appellate brief will not successfully raise the issue for review by Colorado supreme court on appeal. Manka v. Martin, 200 Colo. 260 , 614 P.2d 875 (1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 913, 101 S. Ct. 1354, 67 L. Ed. 2d 338 (1981).   No jurisdiction over constitutionality of statute. Court of appeals did not have jurisdiction to consider the constitutionality of a statute, despite a supreme court order stating that jurisdiction of the case “shall be retained by the court of appeals” because the general assembly did not intend to confer upon the supreme court the power to expand and contract the jurisdictional authority of the court of appeals. People v. Salazar, 715 P.2d 1265 (Colo. App. 1985), cert. denied, 744 P.2d 80 (Colo. 1987); Kollodge v. Charnes, 741 P.2d 1260 (Colo. App. 1987); People v. Woertman, 786 P.2d 443 (Colo. App. 1989); Flores v. Dept. of Rev., 802 P.2d 1175 (Colo. App. 1990); People v. Truesdale, 804 P.2d 287 (Colo. App. 1990); Lucchesi v. State, 807 P.2d 1185 (Colo. App. 1990); People v. Merrill, 816 P.2d 958 (Colo. App. 1991); People v. Robinson, 833 P.2d 832 (Colo. App. 1992).   Court of appeals has jurisdiction over constitutionality of a statute when issue raised in appeal of decisions of statutorily created tribunals under subsection (2). Indus. Comm'n v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 690 P.2d 839 (Colo. 1984).   Statute does not otherwise limit court of appeals authority to address constitutional issues raised in a Colorado appellate rule promulgated by the Colorado supreme court. Refusal to address the constitutional issues raised over C.A.R. 3.4 may mean that appellants would have no forum for their arguments, thus court of appeals concluded it had jurisdiction to address appellant's challenges to constitutionality of the rule. People ex rel. T.D., 140 P.3d 205 (Colo. App.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1020, 127 S. Ct. 564, 166 L. Ed. 2d 411, and 549 U.S. 1024, 127 S. Ct. 565, 166 L. Ed. 2d 419 (2006).   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).   Jurisdiction of the court of appeals was not precluded by subsection (1)(b) since the court was being asked to determine the facial constitutionality of an executive order of the mayor of the city and county of Denver rather than a statute, charter provision, or ordinance. Casados v. City & County of Denver, 832 P.2d 1048 (Colo. App. 1992) (decided prior to 1992 amendment to subsection (1)(b)), rev'd on other grounds, 862 P.2d 908 (Colo. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1005, 114 S. Ct. 1372, 128 L. Ed. 2d 48 (1994).   General assembly's authority to determine the jurisdiction of the court of appeals is exclusive. S. Wash. Assoc. v. Flanagan, 859 P.2d 217 (Colo. 1992).   Parties to an arbitration agreement cannot define and prescribe the powers of a court of law. Where a contract term purported to allow an appellate court to conduct a substantive review of the arbitration panel's award, contrary to the controlling statutes, clause was void and unenforceable. S. Wash. Assoc. v. Flanagan, 859 P.2d 217 (Colo. 1992).   Court of appeals has jurisdiction to address facial constitutionality challenge to a municipal executive order. Casados v. City & County of Denver, 832 P.2d 1048 (Colo. App. 1992), rev'd on other grounds, 862 P.2d 908 (Colo. 1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1005, 114 S. Ct. 1372, 128 L. Ed. 2d 48 (1994).   However, where the court of appeals refers a question of its jurisdiction to the supreme court, which then determined the case properly within the court of appeal's jurisdiction, that ruling is conclusive. Barela v. Beye, 916 P.2d 668 (Colo. App. 1996).   Court of appeals lacks jurisdiction to review an arbitration award; jurisdiction extends only to orders and judgments entered by statutorily specified courts. Thomas v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 857 P.2d 532 (Colo. App. 1993).   Court of appeals does not possess general powers of supervision over lower courts or attorneys appearing therein. Rather, such powers are vested in the supreme court. People v. Bergen, 883 P.2d 532 (Colo. App. 1994).   Defendant's assertion that Colorado's homicide statutes violate principles of equal protection brings into question the constitutionality of a statute and is therefore outside the jurisdiction of the court. People v. Seigler, 832 P.2d 980 (Colo. App. 1991), cert. denied, 846 P.2d 189 (Colo. 1993).   Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the supreme court may retain and review an appeal of a declaratory order of the state personnel board that should have been filed with the court of appeals. The court's authority rests in its power under C.A.R. 50(b) to review cases pending in the court of appeals prior to judgment and under C.A.R. 2 to suspend the rules of appellate procedure. Colo. Ass'n of Pub. Emp. v. Dept. of Hwys., 809 P.2d 988 (Colo. 1991).   Court of appeals does not have jurisdiction over writs of habeas corpus. All district courts have jurisdiction in habeas corpus proceedings and one seeking habeas corpus may select his forum. Duran v. Price, 868 P.2d 375 (Colo. 1994).   Crim. P. 35(c) motion is properly vested in the court of appeals. Duran v. Price, 868 P.2d 375 (Colo. 1994).   Under this section, the court of appeals does not have jurisdiction over an appeal of a district court's decision modifying a county court decision, regardless of whether a district court judgment which modifies a county court judgment is a final judgment of the district court under rule 37 of the Colorado rules of criminal procedure. People v. Smith, 874 P.2d 452 (Colo. App. 1993).   The final judgment of the district court, following a trial de novo, is subject to review by the court of appeals under both § 13-6-310 and this section. Bovard v. People, 99 P.3d 585 (Colo. 2004).   The dismissal of a claim without prejudice is generally not appealable unless such dismissal prohibits further proceedings, such as an applicable statute of limitations. Golden Lodge No. 13, I.O.O.F. v. Easley, 916 P.2d 666 (Colo. App. 1996).   The dismissal of a claim without prejudice for failure to exhaust the administrative remedies provided by the laws and regulations of the Sovereign Lodge was not appealable because the defendant Golden Lodge could at any time file an internal appeal protesting the actions of the Grand Lodge with the supreme governing body, the Sovereign Grand Lodge. Golden Lodge No. 13, I.O.O.F v. Easley, 916 P.2d 666 (Colo. App. 1996).   A denial of a summary judgment motion is not generally considered a final decision that is immediately appealable under this section. City of Lakewood v. Brace, 919 P.2d 231 (Colo. 1996).   An appeal may be taken from an interlocutory order denying a motion to dismiss based on tribal sovereign immunity when the issue presented is one of law not of fact. Rush Creek Solutions, Inc. v. Ute Mtn. Ute Tribe, 107 P.3d 402 (Colo. App. 2004).   Trial court's order reserving ruling on a summary judgment motion and allowing full discovery to proceed is a final judgment for purposes of conferring appellate jurisdiction. Furlong v. Gardner, 956 P.2d 545 (Colo. 1998).   Trial court's direction regarding how the proceeds of moneys recovered by defendants should be applied as a result of other related judgments does not alter the finality of the underlying judgment. BDG Int'l, Inc. v. Bowers, 2013 COA 52 , 303 P.3d 140.   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).   As reenacted, § 22-63-302 authorizes teachers to appeal only school board decisions of dismissal. Under § 22-63-302 , the court does not have jurisdiction to consider appeals of school board decisions placing a teacher on probation. Holdridge v. Bd. of Educ., 881 P.2d 448 (Colo. App. 1994).   Because an order directing a new trial is not a final judgment, the court of appeals has no jurisdiction over such an appeal, even if the defendant assert that a new trial would violate his or her rights. People v. Jones, 942 P.2d 1258 (Colo. App. 1996).   Trial court retains jurisdiction to determine substantive matters when a party files a premature notice of appeal of a nonfinal judgment. Barring extraordinary circumstances, a judgment subject to C.R.C.P. 54(b) certification must be so certified in order to be considered final and sufficient to transfer jurisdiction to the court of appeals. Musick v. Woznicki, 136 P.3d 244 (Colo. 2006).   A trial court's ruling on a question of sovereign immunity under the CGIA raised by a public entity or public employee is a final, appealable judgment. However, when a trial court refuses to dismiss on the basis of allegations of willful and wanton conduct that would eliminate the employee's immunity, its order is not immediately appealable. Carothers v. Archuleta County Sheriff, 159 P.3d 647 (Colo. App. 2006).   Court of appeals has jurisdiction to address an appeal of a trial court's Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) immunity ruling on interlocutory appeal. Absent any Colorado appellate decision addressing whether the court may review an interlocutory appeal as a final judgment, the court may look to federal authority interpreting the federal appellate jurisdiction statute. Considering federal appellate practice and Colorado case law, the FSIA immunity rulings are immediately appealable as final judgments within the meaning of this section and, based on principles of neutrality and sound appellate practice, the court of appeals had jurisdiction to immediately review a trial court's FSIA immunity ruling. United States Taekwondo v. Kukkiwon, , 411 P.3d 782 .   Trial court's act of state ruling is not immediately appealable as a final judgment within the meaning of this section. Based on federal appellate practice and Colorado case law, the act of state rulings are not immediately appealable pursuant to this section. Addressing act of state doctrine issues on interlocutory appeal would require appellate courts to attempt to predict not only when and on what basis the trial court will render its final decision on the merits, but what the foreign policy implications of the act of state ruling will be at that time. The more sound appellate practice is to wait to address act of state issues on appeal from final judgment, when an appellate court can more easily assess the foreign policy implications of its ruling. United States Taekwondo v. Kukkiwon, , 411 P.3d 782 .   The court of appeals has jurisdiction to review a district court decision regarding matters within the water courts' exclusive jurisdiction only insofar as is necessary to determine its own and the district court's jurisdiction. Although the water courts do not, in general, have exclusive jurisdiction to determine the ownership of a water right as opposed to the use of the right under the rule of priority of appropriation, the rule is otherwise when the ownership claims are based on adverse possession and abandonment. In this case, the district court has jurisdiction only with regard to a damages claim, necessitating reversal of the holdings regarding ownership. Archuleta v. Gomez, 140 P.3d 281 (Colo. App. 2006).   Appellate relief must be available to review whether a district court has overstepped its jurisdiction when it transfers a county court case to the district court in violation of a chief judge's order setting forth the proper procedure. People v. Maser, 2012 CO 41, 278 P.3d 361.   Appellate court may consider claims for prosecutorial misconduct when defendant seeks reversal of the conviction and a new trial. People v. Clark, 2015 COA 44 , 370 P.3d 197.   The court of appeals can order a limited remand to the district court for restoration proceedings pursuant to § 16-8.5-111 for future determination of motions to dismiss counsel and dismiss the appeal. People v. Liggett, 2018 COA 94 M, __ P.3d __.   Applied in Evans v. Simpson, 190 Colo. 426 , 547 P.2d 931 (1976); In re Petrafeck v. Indus. Comm'n, 191 Colo. 566 , 554 P.2d 1097 (1976); Kelce v. Touche Ross & Co., 37 Colo. App. 352, 549 P.2d 415 (1976); Mizel v. Banking Bd., 196 Colo. 98 , 581 P.2d 306 (1978); Thomas v. County Court, 198 Colo. 87 , 596 P.2d 768 (1979); People v. Malacara, 199 Colo. 243 , 606 P.2d 1300 (Colo. 1980); People v. Scott, 630 P.2d 615 (Colo. 1981); In re W.D.A. v. City & County of Denver, 632 P.2d 582 (Colo. 1981); People v. Thatcher, 638 P.2d 760 (Colo. 1981); People v. Abbott, 638 P.2d 781 (Colo. 1981); Riley v. Indus. Comm'n, 628 P.2d 147 (Colo. App. 1981); People v. Boyd, 642 P.2d 1 (Colo. 1982); People v. Mason, 642 P.2d 8 (Colo. 1982); In re P.F. v. Walsh, 648 P.2d 1067 (Colo. 1982); People v. Wieder, 693 P.2d 1006 (Colo. App. 1984), aff'd, 722 P.2d 396 (Colo. 1986); People v. Fields, 697 P.2d 749 (Colo. App. 1984); Leske v. Golder, 124 P.3d 863 (Colo. App. 2005).