Colo. Const. art. VI § 9 - District courts - jurisdiction

• Library: Colorado Constitution
• Edition: prefLabel,label,title,shortLabel
• Currency: Current through 11/8/2022 Election
• Citation: Colo. Const. art. VI § 9

(1) The district courts shall be trial courts of record with general jurisdiction, and shall have original jurisdiction in all civil, probate, and criminal cases, except as otherwise provided herein, and shall have such appellate jurisdiction as may be prescribed by law.

(2) (Deleted by amendment, L. 2002, p. 3094, effective upon proclamation of the Governor, L. 2003, p. 3611, December 20, 2002.)

(3) In the city and county of Denver, exclusive original jurisdiction in all matters of probate, settlements of estates of deceased persons, appointment of guardians, conservators and administrators, and settlement of their accounts, the adjudication of the mentally ill, and such other jurisdiction as may be provided by law shall be vested in a probate court, created by section 1 of this article.

Cite as Colo. Const. art. VI § 9

Source:

L. 61: Entire article R&RE, effective January 12, 1965, see L. 63, p. 1050. L. 2002: (2) and (3) amended, p. 3094, effective upon proclamation of the Governor, L. 2003, p. 3611, December 20, 2002.

Editor's Note:

This section is similar to § 11 as it existed prior to 1961.

ANNOTATION

Law reviews. For article, "The District Court", see 4 Den. B. Ass'n Rec. 5 (April 1927). For article, "A Voice from the Grave: Dying Declarations in Colorado", see 15 Dicta 127 (1938). For article, "Commitment of Misdemeanants to the Colorado State Reformatory", see 29 Dicta 294 (1952). For note, "Jurisdiction of Custody Matters in Colorado", see 28 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 393 (1956). For article, "Colorado's Program to Improve Court Administration", see 38 Dicta 1 (1961). For comment on Beere v. Miller appearing below, see 43 Den. L.J. 243 (1966). For note, "In re Gault and the Colorado Children's Code", see 44 Den. L.J. 644 (1967). For article, "Probate Jurisdiction for Creditors' Claims", see 29 Colo. Law. 57 (May 2000).

Annotator's note. Since this section is substantially the same as former § 11 of this article, relevant cases construing § 11 have been included in the annotations to this section.

This section fixes jurisdiction of district court. Weiss-Chapman Drug Co. v. People, 39 Colo. 374, 89 P. 778 (1907).

This is the only provision of the constitution which fixes the jurisdiction of the district court. Patterson v. People ex rel. Parr, 23 Colo. App. 479, 130 P. 618 (1913).

But it does not prescribe procedure. The constitution simply invests the court with the jurisdiction; it nowhere prescribes the procedure to be resorted to for the purpose of securing the desired relief, or provides the machinery by means of which the court's decree may be enforced. Blitz v. Moran, 17 Colo. App. 253, 67 P. 1020 (1902).

Jurisdiction conferred is all-embracing. The jurisdiction conferred on the district courts by this section should be construed as all-embracing, as its terms are unrestricted. Patterson v. People ex rel. Parr, 23 Colo. App. 479, 130 P. 618 (1913).

And is to be received in broadest sense. The equitable powers of the district court extend to all cases where the law affords no adequate relief, even where there is no statutory provision, and even where the subject matter of the controversy was not known to be of equitable cognizance at the time of the adoption of the constitution. Patterson v. People ex rel. Parr, 23 Colo. App. 479, 130 P. 618 (1913).

District courts are constitutional courts of general jurisdiction. In re Question Concerning State Judicial Review, 199 Colo. 463, 610 P.2d 1340 (1980).

Constitutional jurisdiction may not be limited by statute. The constitutional jurisdiction of district courts is unlimited. It should not be limited without circumspection, and no statute should be held to limit it unless it says so plainly. People ex rel. Cruz v. Morley, 77 Colo. 25, 234 P. 178 (1925); In re A.W., 637 P.2d 366 (Colo. 1981).

No territorial limit to civil jurisdiction. No territorial limit is fixed by the constitution to the civil jurisdiction either of the district courts or of the county courts. Fletcher v. Stowell, 17 Colo. 94, 28 P. 326 (1891).

District courts of this state have statewide jurisdiction. Bacher v. District Court, 186 Colo. 314, 527 P.2d 56 (1974).

As will federal courts. In a diversity case the federal court inherits the jurisdictional scope that is enjoyed by the state court within the district. Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc., 601 F.2d 516 (10th Cir. 1979).

District courts are courts of general jurisdiction regardless of amount in controversy. Williams v. Speedster, Inc., 175 Colo. 73, 485 P.2d 728 (1971).

Jurisdiction of district and county courts is concurrent with respect to matters which fall within the jurisdiction of both. Ohmie v. Martinez, 141 Colo. 480, 349 P.2d 131 (1960).

Jurisdiction of district court and supreme court is not concurrent. People ex rel. Graves v. District Court, 37 Colo. 443, 86 P. 87, 92 P. 958 (1906).

But exclude each other. It is clear from this provision that the jurisdiction of both the district court and the supreme court being created by the constitution, the jurisdiction of each was necessarily excluded from the other. Friesen v. People ex rel. Fletcher, 118 Colo. 1, 192 P.2d 430 (1948).

Jurisdiction includes extraordinary and remedial writs. The jurisdiction conferred by this section is broad enough to include writs of certiorari, as well as the other extraordinary and remedial writs of which the supreme court is invested with jurisdiction by § 3 of this article. In re Rogers, 14 Colo. 18, 22 P. 1053 (1890); Turner v. City & County of Denver, 146 Colo. 336, 361 P.2d 631 (1961).