2021 Colorado Code
Title 13 - Courts and Court Procedure
Article 4 - Court of Appeals
§ 13-4-102.1. Interlocutory Appeals of Determinations of Questions of Law in Civil Cases

1. The court of appeals, under rules promulgated by the Colorado supreme court, may permit an interlocutory appeal of a certified question of law in a civil matter from a district court or the probate court of the city and county of Denver if:
   1. The trial court certifies that immediate review may promote a more orderly disposition or establish a final disposition of the litigation; and
   2. The order involves a controlling and unresolved question of law.

2. A majority of the judges who are in regular active service on the court of appeals and who are not disqualified may, if approved by rules promulgated by the Colorado supreme court, order that an interlocutory appeal permitted by the court of appeals be heard or reheard by the court of appeals en banc.

History. Source: L. 2010: Entire section added,(HB 10-1395), ch. 364, p. 1719, § 2, effective August 11.

For interlocutory appeals in civil cases, see C.A.R. 4.2.

Law reviews. For article, “Interlocutory Appeals in Civil Cases Under C.A.R. 4.2”, see 41 Colo. Law. 67 (April 2012). For article, “Knowing When to Change Trains: The Ins and Outs of Interlocutory Appeals”, see 41 Colo. Law. 31 (June 2012).

Interlocutory resolution would not promote a more orderly disposition. Where plaintiff petitioned for interlocutory review of district court's order that economic loss rule barred plaintiff's other claims against defendants, immediate review would not have avoided a trial. Therefore, interlocutory resolution of the economic loss question would not promote a more orderly disposition of the litigation. Wahrman v. Golden W. Realty, 313 P.3d 674 (Colo. App. 2011).

Motion to trial court to reconsider disqualification order did not toll the provisions of C.A.R. 4.2(c) requiring the filing of a motion or stipulation for certification by the trial court within 14 days after the date of the disqualification order. The trial court does not have authority pursuant to C.R.C.P. 6(b) to extend the 14-day deadline for filing a motion for certification of issues in the trial court. The department of human services' motion for reconsideration was not a C.R.C.P. 59 motion. Further, C.A.R. 26(b) does not apply because the failure to timely file was not the result of excusable neglect. People in Interest of A.M.C., 2014 COA 31 , 411 P.3d 90.

Generally, an issue of contract interpretation that applies well-settled principles is not a “question of law” for purposes of this section. Rich v. Ball Ranch P'ship, 2015 COA 6 , 345 P.3d 980.

Applied in Kowalchik v. Brohl, 2012 COA 25 , 277 P.3d 885; Triple Crown v. Vill. Homes of Colo., , 389 P.3d 888 .