Rule 82.Jurisdiction Unaffected
Current through June 1, 2026 · Last verified July 10, 2026
Full Text of Rule 82
Amendment History
The source reproduced here (current through June 1, 2026) records no amendment to this rule since its original adoption — no Credits line appears for it in the compiled rules. For the underlying adopting order and any later amendments, see the Colorado General Assembly.
Plain-English Summary
Rule 82 draws a line between procedure and jurisdiction. The civil rules govern how a case moves through court — pleadings, motions, discovery, trial — but they say nothing about which court has the power to hear a case in the first place. That power, a court's jurisdiction, comes from the state constitution and statutes.
Because of Rule 82, no other civil rule can be read to give a court authority over a case or a type of dispute it wouldn't otherwise have, and no rule can be read to take away jurisdiction a court already holds. If a rule's wording seems to touch on jurisdiction, courts read it as addressing procedure within existing jurisdiction, not as changing the jurisdiction itself.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a rule of civil procedure give a court jurisdiction it wouldn't otherwise have?
No. Rule 82 makes clear the rules can't extend a court's jurisdiction beyond what the constitution and statutes provide.
Can a civil rule take jurisdiction away from a court?
No. The same principle in Rule 82 works both ways — the rules can't limit jurisdiction any more than they can expand it.
Where does a Colorado court's jurisdiction come from?
From the state constitution and the statutes enacted by the legislature, not from the rules of civil procedure.
Why include a rule that doesn't set out any procedure of its own?
To prevent any other rule from being misread as a grant or limit on a court's jurisdiction, keeping the rules focused on practice and procedure alone.