Opinion ID: 2634706
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Interplay between Municipal and District Court Jurisdiction

Text: Despite the limitations imposed by the constitution, a municipal court's exercise of its jurisdiction may affect the jurisdiction of the district courts. A review of the interplay between a municipal court's exercise of jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of district courts, however, illustrates that there is no conflict between the jurisdiction of these courts. The constitution specifically grants municipalities the authority to define municipal court jurisdiction and limits the jurisdiction of district courts insofar as the municipal court may exercise its jurisdiction. Nonetheless, because this effect is specifically provided for in the constitution, the municipal court's exercise of its jurisdiction is not outside the bounds of its authority. When a municipality exercises jurisdiction to address local and municipal matters in its municipal court, the district court will consequently be denied original jurisdiction over those matters. Where a municipality has not exercised jurisdiction, however, the district court may hear local and municipal matters in the first instance. Thus, although a municipality may affect the jurisdiction of the district courts, the constitution has specifically provided for such an outcome. The district courts are courts of general jurisdiction, and shall have original jurisdiction in all civil, probate, and criminal cases, except as otherwise provided herein. Colo. Const. art. VI, § 9 (emphasis added). Thus, the constitution specifically allocates jurisdiction to the district courts except as otherwise provided. As the constitution specifically provides for municipal court jurisdiction, there is no conflict between the authority of the municipal and district courts. [4] Article XX, section 6, gives municipalities every power theretofore possessed by the legislature to authorize municipalities to function in local and municipal affairs. City and County of Denver v. State, 788 P.2d 764, 767 (Colo.1990) (quoting Four-County Metro. Capital Improvement Dist. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 149 Colo. 284, 294, 369 P.2d 67, 72 (1962)). Although the legislature retains supreme authority over statewide concerns, municipalities are not inferior to the General Assembly regarding matters of local and municipal concern. Id. With respect to purely local and municipal matters, the charter may be, and doubtless is, the paramount law. . . . Williams, 38 Colo. at 506, 88 P. at 466. Moreover, [i]n purely local and municipal matters, home rule cities may exercise exclusive jurisdiction by passing ordinances which supercede state statutes. Vela v. People, 174 Colo. 465, 466, 484 P.2d 1204, 1205 (1971). Thus, due to the constitution's specific grant of authority to the municipalities to define the jurisdiction of their courts, the effect on the district courts is not prohibited. If we were to decide otherwise, we would render meaningless article XX, section 6, which specifically grants to home rule cities the power to define the jurisdiction of their municipal courts. Every time a municipality decides to exercise the power given to it, and creates a municipal court, it necessarily affects the jurisdiction of the district court over local and municipal matters. It is [ ] a maxim of the law that the mention of one thing is the exclusion of the other. This maxim is particularly applicable when that which is expressed is creative, for then it becomes exclusive. Graves, 37 Colo. at 450, 86 P. at 89. In short, it would be impossible for one court to exercise jurisdiction without somehow affecting the jurisdiction of another court.