Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bacher v. District Court

Supreme Court of Colorado

Decided October 7, 1974No. 26530Published

1DissentJustice Lee

I respectfully dissent.

As I view our venue rule, it would appear that once venue has attached to a case and motions, if any, for change of venue have been determined or have been waived, the court having jurisdiction of the principal action retains it for all ancillary or incidental proceedings in the case.

C.R.C.P. 98(f) appears only to authorize a change of the place of trial before trial and not after the trial has been had and determined. This is implicit in the provisions of Rule 98(d), relating to the time of filing of the motion for change of venue. Here, the trial of the divorce action…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Cooley v. Ensign-Bickford CompanySupreme Court of Iowa · 1973
  2. McCall v. BowenNebraska Supreme Court · 1912
  3. West View Corp. v. Thunderbolt Yacht Basin Inc.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1951
  4. Ruchverg v. RussellNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1942
  5. White v. HarbesonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1916

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API