(1) A court of appeals may, in its
discretion, permit an interlocutory appeal of a district court's order that grants or denies class
action certification under court rule so long as application is made to the court of appeals within
fourteen days after entry of the district court's order.
(2) An appeal that is allowed under subsection (1) of this section shall not stay
proceedings in the district court unless the district court or the court of appeals so orders. If a
stay is ordered, all discovery and other proceedings shall be stayed during the pendency of an
appeal taken pursuant to this section unless the court ordering the stay finds upon the motion of
any party that specific discovery is necessary to preserve evidence or to prevent undue prejudice
to such party.
Source: L. 2003: Entire part added, p. 845, § 1, effective July 1. L. 2014: (1) amended,
(HB 14-1347), ch. 208, p. 768, § 2, effective July 1.
PART 10
INJURIES OCCURRING OUT OF STATE
Law reviews: For article, "Limited Availability of the Forum Non Conveniens Defense
in Colorado State Courts", see 33 Colo. Law. 83 (Nov. 2004).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases, 2004–2020 · leading case:
v. Advisorlaw LLC, 2020 COA 122 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
v. Advisorlaw LLC, 2020 COA 122 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “, § 13-20-901(1), C.R.S. 2019 4 III. Analysis ¶9 Defendants moved to dismiss this appeal because plaintiffs dismissed some of their claims without prejudice.”
Devora v. Strodtman, 282 P.3d 528 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 15× “Indeed, this issue was addressed by the Senate Judiciary Committee before section 13-20-901 was enacted. See Hearings on H.”
Soto v. Progressive Mountain Ins. Co., 181 P.3d 297 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 5× “In May 2006, the motions division of this court issued an order to Progressive to show cause why its cross-appeal should not be dismissed for failure timely to request review, pursuant to § 13-20-901, C.R.S.2006, of the trial court's order granting class certification.”
Clark v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 117 P.3d 26 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 7× “23(f) and § 13-20-901(1), C.R.S. 2004, and accept an interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s order denying class certification in her action against defendants, Farmers Insurance Exchange and Mid-Century Insurance Company (Farmers).”
Garcia v. Medved Chevrolet, Inc., 240 P.3d 371 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 6× “Defendants' petition was filed on July 13, 2009. We conclude that the petition was filed within ten days, excluding intervening weekend days and holidays.”
Jackson v. Unocal Corp., 262 P.3d 874 (Colo. 2011).
· cites it 2× “23(f); § 13-20-901, C.R.S. (2011). The discretionary burden regime adopted by the majority today is, in my view, contrary to Colorado law.”
Medina v. Conseco Annuity Assurance Co., 121 P.3d 345 (Colo. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “An abuse of discretion occurs where the trial court’s decision is manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable, or unfair, or when the trial court applies incorrect legal standards.”
Reyher v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 230 P.3d 1244 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 5× “Second, the requirements for appellate review of class certification orders set forth in section 13-20-901, C.R.S. 2009, do not apply because this action was filed before the statute’s effective date.”
Salmonsen v. CGD, INC., 661 S.E.2d 81 (S.C. 2008).
· cites it 2× “2(a)(9) (Arkansas); Colo.Rev.Stat. § 13-20-901 (2006)(Colorado); Conn.”
— Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-20-901(1) — 6 cases
v. Advisorlaw LLC, 2020 COA 122 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
“, § 13-20-901(1), C.R.S. 2019 4 III. Analysis ¶9 Defendants moved to dismiss this appeal because plaintiffs dismissed some of their claims without prejudice.”
Devora v. Strodtman, 282 P.3d 528 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012).
“Indeed, this issue was addressed by the Senate Judiciary Committee before section 13-20-901 was enacted. See Hearings on H.”
Clark v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 117 P.3d 26 (Colo. Ct. App. 2004).
“23(f) and § 13-20-901(1), C.R.S. 2004, and accept an interlocutory appeal of the trial court’s order denying class certification in her action against defendants, Farmers Insurance Exchange and Mid-Century Insurance Company (Farmers).”
Soto v. Progressive Mountain Ins. Co., 181 P.3d 297 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007).
“In May 2006, the motions division of this court issued an order to Progressive to show cause why its cross-appeal should not be dismissed for failure timely to request review, pursuant to § 13-20-901, C.R.S.2006, of the trial court's order granting class certification.”
Garcia v. Medved Chevrolet, Inc., 240 P.3d 371 (Colo. Ct. App. 2009).
“Defendants' petition was filed on July 13, 2009. We conclude that the petition was filed within ten days, excluding intervening weekend days and holidays.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.