Opinion ID: 2499605
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Subsection (1): Judicial Review

Text: ¶ 13 Subsection (1) is clearly jurisdictional. It provides a strict process and notes the court of jurisdiction. We must determine whether subsection (5), in specifying the counties where an action may be commenced and tried, supplements the jurisdictional requirements of subsection (1) or acts as a freestanding venue requirement. ¶ 14 An initial question is the meaning of the district court in subsection (1). This is an unusual formulation. In district court is a typical colloquialism, as the district court below pointed out. But the district court is also susceptible to a second meaning, the district court which as defined in subsection (5) may hear the action. As the two possible meanings raise an ambiguity, we look to legislative history to determine legislative intent. The forerunner of the current statute, an act of 1913, originally provided that, to challenge a PUC decision, the applicant may apply to the supreme court of this State for a writ of review. Ch. 127, sec. 52, 1913 Colo. Sess. Laws 497 (emphasis added). An amendment of 1945 simply replaced the supreme court with the district court. Ch. 195, sec. 8, 1945 Colo. Sess. Laws 531. This indicates that the district court in the current statute is so phrased as to contrast with other types of courts. It does not suggest a cross-reference to the commenced and tried language, also added in 1945 (tacked onto the end of the section), which has become subsection (5). Id. at 532.