Transcript Highlights:

• And that essentially is a summary judgment standard, right?
• You're essentially asking for a summary judgment standard.
• And number two, that goes beyond summary judgment.
• And judges are pretty judicious about dismissing summary judgment or judgment as a matter of law at that
• And among the judgments that I got in that case from the jury in Gallup was a judgment against a UNM

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 61, which would raise aggravated battery on a peace officer from a third-degree to a second-degree felony in cases involving great bodily harm or a deadly weapon. The sponsor and supporters said the bill fixes an inconsistency in current law, where aggravated assault on an officer can be punished more severely than aggravated battery causing serious injury. Law enforcement representatives, the Chiefs Association, CBRC, and chamber representatives testified in support, and the New Mexico Sentencing Commission was noted as having endorsed the bill by a 6-3-4 vote. After questions about proportionality and plea bargaining, the committee voted due pass on HB 61 without objection. The committee then returned to House Bill 99, a medical malpractice reform bill, and several members made conflict-of-interest disclosures before debating amendments. The discussion focused heavily on the patient compensation fund, surcharge setting, and whether an advisory board or the superintendent should control rates. Amendments to segregate future fund money, require surcharges no lower than the advisory board’s recommendation, and create a commission with more actuarial and financial expertise were debated at length; the committee rejected the first two amendments. Members and witnesses argued over whether past undercharging of hospitals and doctors led to insolvency and taxpayer bailouts, and whether the bill should require more transparency and oversight. The committee also debated amendments on punitive damages. One proposal would have delayed punitive damage claims until after substantial discovery; opponents said it would conflict with civil procedure, prolong litigation, and likely be struck down. Another would have tied punitive damages to a multiple of compensatory damages or a percentage of net worth; supporters said that would better deter harmful conduct, while opponents said it would create uncertainty and more discovery. That amendment also failed. A final punitive-damages amendment would have removed caps in cases involving sexual assault or intoxication by a health care provider and protected the first $5 million of an independent provider’s personal assets; it too was rejected after members said it would shield egregious misconduct and go beyond the bill’s purpose.

Transcript Highlights:

• Barault relative to the appropriation of monies from the State General Fund to pay certain consent judgments
• provide relative to the appropriation of monies from the State General Fund to pay certain consent judgments
• provide relative to the appropriation of monies from the State General Fund to pay certain consent judgments
• provide relative to the appropriation of monies from the State General Fund to pay certain consent judgments
• provide relative to the appropriation of monies from the State General Fund to pay certain consent judgments

Summary: The House convened with 96 members present, opened in prayer and pledge, and introduced several resolutions and bills. Among the measures laid over were resolutions recognizing Funeral Directors’ Day, the crew of Eve’s anniversary, Crime Stoppers of Greater New Orleans, Nurse Practitioner Day, and condolences resolutions for several individuals. Bills introduced included appropriations measures to pay consent judgments, a property tax exemption bill for certain trusts involving seniors, and a nursing practice bill on administering reconstituted medication. Committee reports were also received, including favorable reports and amendments on multiple House bills from Civil Law and Transportation. The chamber adopted several resolutions without objection, including condolences for former Speaker Joe R. Salter, Derek Scott, and Leroy Cavalier, recognition of Bernardo de Gálvez and Hispanic contributions to the American Revolution, Codafield Day, Drew Brees’ Hall of Fame election, and support for continued National Guard operations at Camp Beauregard. Other resolutions were referred to committees, including measures on DOJ transparency regarding Epstein-related records, a housing rental assistance feasibility study, LHSAA recognition of dance and cheer as sports, and a study of disinheritance procedures for intestate successors. During personal privilege remarks, Representative McCormick discussed PILOTs (payments in lieu of taxes), citing legislative auditor findings about limited reporting and local entities’ authority to approve PILOTs, and questioned their economic development impact. Representatives also recognized a visiting 7th grade class from Trinity Episcopal School and held a moment of silence honoring Reverend Jesse Jackson. Announcements included upcoming committee meetings, a rescheduled Transportation Committee meeting with additional bills added, an ethics training after adjournment, and a Bible study meeting the next morning. The House then adjourned until 2:00 p.m. the following day.

Transcript Highlights:

• system, and that a licensed health care professional maintains the ability to exercise professional judgment
• A nurse's professional health care judgment simply cannot be automated by an algorithm.
• by ensuring AI supports licensed professionals instead of replacing or controlling our clinical judgment
• Today, AI systems are being used in areas of patient... ...clinical judgment.
• I am using my clinical judgment to decide what matters most for the next nurse to know about... ...judgment

Summary: The committee heard AB 1979, which would limit the use of AI in health care by requiring licensed professionals to retain final clinical judgment, prohibiting automated systems from directing unlicensed individuals to perform licensed clinical functions, and clarifying medical-record privacy rules for direct-to-consumer health chatbots. Supporters, including nurses and labor groups, said the bill preserves patient safety and keeps care decisions in human hands. Hospital and industry groups opposed unless amended, arguing the bill could create compliance burdens and interfere with training and legitimate AI-assisted care. The bill was approved 6-1 and placed on call. Members then considered AB 2624, which would expand California’s Safe at Home confidentiality program to immigrant service providers, employees, and volunteers facing harassment or doxing. The author and supporters described threats, stalking, and online targeting of immigrant advocates and said the bill would let them use substitute addresses to protect their safety. Opposition focused mainly on concerns about the bill’s legal enforcement language, though the author said it mirrors existing Safe at Home provisions and does not create a new private right of action. The measure passed 4-1 and was placed on call. AB 2103 would make Engaged California a permanent statewide public engagement program. The author and the Office of Data and Innovation said it is meant to broaden civic participation through structured deliberation and transparent publication of results. Some members raised concerns about partisan balance and topic selection, while supporters emphasized the need to reach Californians who do not typically participate in hearings. The bill passed 6-0 and was placed on call. The committee also heard AB 2, a social media accountability bill for harms to children and teens, and AB 883, which would expand privacy protections and shorten data-broker deletion timelines for elected officials and judges; both drew support and opposition, were approved on committee votes, and placed on call. Later, the committee began AB 2023, a chatbot safety bill for children that would require age verification, safety audits, default protections, and limits on ads and data sharing; testimony was strongly supportive from child-safety advocates, while industry groups raised concerns about vague standards, audits, and liability.

Transcript Highlights:

• Maryland and support the Constitution and laws thereof, and that I will, to the best of my skill and judgment
• Maryland and support the Constitution and laws thereof, and that I will, to the best of my skill and judgment
• state of Maryland, and support the Constitution and laws thereof, and that I will, to the best of my judgment
• , or to the best of my skill and judgment, Or to the best of my skill and judgment, diligently and faithfully
• thereof And support the Constitution and laws thereof, and that I will, to the best of my skill and judgment

Transcript Highlights:

• From a legal standpoint, we've never had a definition of 'cost judgment' or 'criminal judgment.'
• Number one is a criminal or a cost judgment, and you know how that implements with the Title 28 Section
• does is it basically, even though they want to use a different term, it kicks it back to a civil judgment
• would require sending it to some type of collection agency in order to In order to collect this judgment
• Please render a judgment. Thank you. Any further questions? Having a do pass in a second.

Bills: HB2650 , HB3277 , HB3386 , HB3419 , HB3430 , HB3742 , HB3791 , HB3835 , HB3905 , HB3968 , HB4119 , HB4153 , HB4408

Committee: House Judiciary and Public Safety Oversight

Keywords: probate, estate administration, summary administration, decedent, inheritance, vehicle inspection, title registration, salvage vehicles, ownership, Oklahoma Statutes, evictions, forcible entry, mediation, residency proof, children, housing law, corruption, nonpublic information, government accountability, criminal law

Transcript Highlights:

• And then, of course, the gross malfeasance and malpractice cases, which displayed a lack of judgment.
• Is it possible that you would have to make a judgment call on one of those situations?
• There's no interference with my judgment.
• So I would not sit in judgment of that doctor too harshly.
• It's that automatic jump to the judgment. And we can, this is not a debate about pro-life.

Summary: The committee first considered the confirmation of Dr. John Lattell to the Board of Medicine. In questioning, senators focused heavily on his views about abortion, vaccines, ivermectin, and the role of CDC/FDA guidance in board discipline cases. Dr. Lattell said the board applies Florida statutes and works through probable cause panels and legal counsel, but he also expressed strong pro-life views, skepticism of federal health guidance, and criticism of vaccines and some medical practices. Supporters praised his long medical career, military service, and family medicine background, while opponents argued his views could prevent him from being objective in disciplinary matters. The committee voted to recommend him for confirmation to the full Senate, with Senators Polsky and Ruson voting no. The committee then took up the confirmation of Taylor Hatch as Secretary of the Department of Children and Families. Hatch described her background in state human services and outlined priorities centered on accountability, data, lived experience, and improving service delivery. Senators asked about SNAP error rates, Hope Florida, legislative analyses, staffing, and the department’s handling of child welfare and medically complex cases. Hatch said the department was reducing SNAP error rates, that Hope Florida uses navigators to connect people with community resources and self-sufficiency supports, and that DCF is working with the Department of Health and other partners to improve investigations and accountability in child welfare. She also said the agency is reviewing medically complex cases and strengthening oversight of community-based care providers through contracts, audits, and proposed funding-model changes. A substantial portion of the Hatch discussion centered on whether the department had been responsive to legislative requests and whether it had provided timely bill analyses. Senators also pressed her on Hope Florida staffing, the number of participants served, and the Hope Florida Foundation’s compliance and legal oversight. Hatch said the foundation is undergoing a financial audit and that the department is relying on required reports and ongoing investigations. The transcript ends amid continued questioning about a community-based care contractor’s finances, related-party transactions, and whether further forensic audits or repayments are needed.

Transcript Highlights:

• . >> Uh, yeah, so we would try to exhaust all collection efforts against someone we obtain a judgment
• what the fund does is it doesn't foreclose us continuing to pursue collection efforts against a judgment
• </c><00:10:22.000><c> So</c><00:10:22.560><c> the</c><00:10:22.800><c> answer</c> obtain a judgment from
• So the answer obtain a judgment from.
• Um and anything that we pay judgment.

Summary: The committee heard House File 4867, a bill from Representative Lee to make changes to the Consumer Protection Restitution Account created the prior year to help victims of fraud. The Attorney General’s Office testified that the fund has already received more than $4.5 million and is beginning its first distributions, including payments to victims of the closure of Woodbury Dental. The office said the bill would remove the current $5 million annual deposit cap and establish a more equitable distribution formula so large claims would not exhaust the fund and prevent other victims from receiving restitution. Public testimony strongly supported the bill. A Woodbury Dental victim described paying $25,000 upfront, losing her dental work when the clinic abruptly closed, and having to start over with another dentist; she said reimbursement would help her recover from the loss. An AARP Minnesota representative also supported the measure as a cleanup bill that improves the new restitution program. Members asked about how the bill would handle large claims, whether the Attorney General could still pursue defendants for additional recovery, and whether restitution payments would be taxable. The Attorney General’s Office said it would continue collection efforts and reimburse the fund if later recoveries are made, and Representative Lee said the bill includes a provision making payments non-taxable. The chair then moved that House File 4867 be laid over, and the bill was laid over without a vote on passage.

Transcript Highlights:

• But my thinking is that a commissioner doesn't issue any type of order or judgment without a judge, the
• If there is a judgment that was made, a civil action was made on behalf of the children, then they would
• I noticed you said that if they obtained a judgment, then the maintenance could be reduced.
• That would indicate to me that if you filed a civil judgment, you don't get any maintenance automatically
• in his or her favor, the child maintenance shall be offset by the judgment awarded in the civil action

Committee: House Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence

Summary: The committee held public hearings on House Bill 3144 and House Bill 3160, both dealing with appeals of preliminary injunctions. The sponsors said the bills would allow a party to appeal a preliminary injunction more broadly, rather than limiting that right to the Attorney General, and they described the measure as a response to prior litigation and equal protection concerns. Supporters, including a Campaign Life Missouri lobbyist and Attorney General’s office counsel, argued the change would align Missouri practice with federal interlocutory appeal rules and protect both sides from harm while litigation is pending. Some members questioned whether the bills were aimed at pending Amendment 3 litigation and raised concerns about fairness and whether the language should apply evenly to all parties; the sponsors said one bill would be amended to match the other. No vote was taken on these bills during the hearing. The committee then heard House Bill 1910, “Bentley and Mason’s Law,” which would require a person convicted of driving while intoxicated or drug-impaired driving that causes the death of a parent or guardian to pay child maintenance to the surviving children, with support continuing until age 18 or longer if the child is in college, and with arrearages addressed after release from incarceration. Representative Williams and several family members and victims testified in strong support, describing the bill as a deterrent and a way to hold impaired drivers financially accountable for the children left behind. Supporters said similar laws have passed in other states and cited a Tennessee case as an example of the law working in practice. Committee members asked about how maintenance would be calculated, whether the offender’s income would be considered, how civil judgments would interact with the maintenance order, and whether arrearages should accrue during incarceration; the sponsor said the bill could be refined and that those issues could be worked out. Opposition to HB 1910 was limited, but one law enforcement witness said he supported the concept despite being listed as opposition, and another witness from MADD strongly endorsed the bill. The hearing ended with no action on HB 1910. In executive session, the committee voted HJR 130 do pass by a vote of 13-0. It then considered HB 2086, a bill relating to the practice of law, which drew constitutional and separation-of-powers concerns from several members; the final vote was 7-7, and the bill was reported as due pass despite the tie.

Transcript Highlights:

• The initial bill also decreased the judgment timeline.
• So we kept it at status quo, the judgment period. And we also took an amendment.
• So we kept it at status quo, the judgment period.
• Substitute Senate Bill 5720 relates to default judgments in actions to collect consumer debt.
• requirements that a plaintiff must meet in order to obtain a default judgment in an action.

Bills: SB6011

Committee: House Civil Rights & Judiciary

Keywords: court security, bailiffs, threat assessment, judicial safety, law enforcement

Transcript Highlights:

• You are the collective judgment.
• We did get summary judgment occasionally.
• We did get summary judgment occasionally.
• They make a judgment call and render a verdict.
• judgment to say, you know what, city or school district, you were really responsible.

Summary: The subcommittee first heard HB 6507, a claims bill for Marcus Button, who suffered severe permanent injuries in a 2006 school bus crash. Representative Andrade explained that a jury awarded Button more than $2 million in 2009, but only a small amount was paid under sovereign immunity limits. He said Pasco County later reached a settlement with Button, but believed it lacked legal authority to pay without legislative approval. The bill would give the county that authority. There was no opposition testimony, and the bill passed unanimously, 18-0. The committee then took up HB 301, which would substantially revise Florida’s sovereign immunity framework. Representative McFarland said the bill would raise liability caps for state and local governments from $200,000/$300,000 to $1 million/$3 million, with a later increase in 2030, align statutes of limitations with private suits, allow governments to settle above the caps without a claims bill, and prevent insurance policies from conditioning payment on legislative approval. She framed the bill as a way to reduce the need for the claims bill process and provide faster redress to injured people. Testimony on HB 301 was sharply divided. Local governments, school districts, counties, cities, hospital groups, and insurance representatives opposed the bill, arguing the higher caps would sharply increase insurance and taxpayer costs, especially for small or fiscally constrained entities, and that the claims bill process and special masters provide useful review and leverage. Supporters, including the Florida Justice Association and several members, argued the current system is too slow and political, leaves seriously injured people waiting years for compensation, and should be modernized to better hold government accountable. No vote was taken on HB 301 in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• required to pay all necessary expenses of defending the action against the server, and any monetary judgment
• The judgment creditor could seek satisfaction for damages only from the retailer, not the server, and
• any judgment against the server could not become a lien upon any of the server’s property.
• So again, this is holding—so if there's a civil judgment, So again, if there's a civil judgment against
• a server, does the retailer pay the civil judgment as well as the legal expenses?

Summary: The House Consumer Protection & Business Committee held a public hearing on a bill concerning indemnification of commercial liquor servers. Staff explained that under current law, both licensed retailers and individual servers can face administrative penalties and civil liability if they sell alcohol to someone apparently under the influence, and the bill would require the retailer to pay the server’s defense costs and any civil judgment, while preserving existing administrative penalties and causes of action against the retailer. Members asked about how the current penalty structure works, whether the bill would change administrative enforcement, and how liability would apply in situations involving a lone server or multiple establishments; staff said the bill did not specifically address those scenarios. The prime sponsor said the bill was intended to protect lower-paid servers from losing everything in civil lawsuits when they were not the ones who violated the law, while still holding accountable those who actually break the rules. She emphasized that the bill was meant to start a broader conversation and that the term “indemnification” was used as a placeholder for the policy concept. Members raised questions about whether the retailer’s insurance would cover judgments, how the proposal would interact with existing liability rules, and whether cannabis service would be included; the sponsor said cannabis was not currently covered but might be if treated like alcohol in the future. A representative of the Washington Hospitality Association testified that liquor liability insurance is increasingly expensive and difficult to obtain, with fewer insurers, higher premiums, and some businesses unable to get coverage. The association said the bill would not materially change current law because licensees already defend themselves and employees in civil suits, but it would not stop servers from being named in lawsuits, which can still harm workers’ backgrounds and future employment. The association argued the larger problem is lawsuit abuse and urged broader reforms to damages, demand rules, and joint-and-several liability. The hearing ended with the committee closing public testimony on the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Execution of the judgment may not occur until five court days have expired after the entry of the judgment
• If the tenant pays the amount of rent and fees due before the entry of judgment or before the five court
• days have expired...” “...the judgment is satisfied and the tenancy is restored.
• So I’m super grateful to the committee for hearing the bill.” ...to get crushed by a huge judgment at
• Part of the reason why our judgments are getting so large is because of how much time it takes to get

Summary: The Senate Housing Committee held public hearings on three bills. SB 6237 would require landlords to disclose flooding history and flood risk to new tenants, along with notices that renters’ insurance and flood insurance may be needed and that county or local government sources have hazard information. The sponsor said the bill was a simple disclosure modeled on other states’ laws after recent flooding in Washington. Testimony was generally supportive, with an environmental nonprofit urging a broader jurisdiction-based disclosure instead of only county government, and housing industry groups saying they were neutral or concerned about added lease disclosures and asking for clearer language about what flooding information must be disclosed. No vote was taken on the bill. The committee then heard SB 6214, which would authorize public corporations, housing authorities, and certain nonprofits to operate as land bank authorities for affordable housing, with requirements for affordability covenants, annual reports, priority access to tax-foreclosed properties, and tax exemptions for qualifying land bank property and transfers. Supporters from Spokane, counties, housing authorities, affordable housing groups, and developers said land banking would help lower land costs, speed development, and expand affordable housing production. One member of the public opposed the bill, arguing it could remove land from the market and affect rural land supply. Department of Revenue staff flagged a technical issue, saying the bill needs a clearer definition of a qualifying land bank authority so the exemption can be administered, and confirmed the proposal would shift property off the tax rolls. The committee also asked whether the bill would allow non-housing uses such as parks or green space; staff said the bill requires affordable housing use, though the other half of land bank activity is not specified. The committee also heard SB 6139, which would require landlords to keep accepting previously used payment methods and continue to accept partial rent payments during an unlawful detainer process, while making clear that partial payments do not reinstate a lease or stop an eviction unless the parties agree in writing. The sponsor said the bill was intended to address cases where tenants can make partial payments but landlords shut off payment portals and refuse them, forcing judges to issue case-by-case standstill orders. Tenant advocates opposed the bill, arguing it would encourage evictions, remove judicial discretion, and could trap tenants by inviting partial payments that do not protect their housing. Landlord and property management groups were concerned about requiring continued access to payment portals and about ambiguity over whether accepting partial payments would waive eviction rights, though they said the bill was a good starting point and suggested clearer receipts and statutory protections. The public hearing was closed without action on SB 6139. In executive session, the committee adopted a proposed substitute for SB 6091, which limits broker marketing restrictions without requiring open access to homes and removes a Washington Law Against Discrimination provision, then voted the bill do pass to Rules. The committee also voted to recommend confirmation of gubernatorial appointments 9278, Pedro Espinoza, and 9279, Diana H. Perez, to the Housing Finance Commission.

Transcript Highlights:

• So in the physician’s medical judgment, if they felt that that was inappropriate and going against his
• And do you feel that that in a, for instance, if a physician's medical judgment tells him that they,
• So in the physician's medical judgment, So, Mr.
• Chairman, follow up, so in the physician's medical judgment, if they felt that that was inappropriate
• If it is in the physician's best judgment that he may give the patient a paper prescription, is that

Summary: The committee met to consider a large agenda of health and human services bills, moving quickly because of a two-hour time limit. Early measures reported favorably included SB 976 on challenges to court-appointed psychologists in family law cases, SB 306 on Medicaid provider network access and after-hours availability, and SB 584 on housing supports for college students and youth in extended foster care. SB 1412 on home health regulation modernization also passed, with one support appearance from the Home Care Association. Members then approved several bills focused on research and care delivery, including SB 1800 creating a Parkinson’s disease research consortium at USF with an adopted amendment adding academic medical centers, SB 524 adding Duchenne muscular dystrophy to newborn screening, SB 1156 revising a Medicaid home health aide program for medically fragile children, and SB 1490 transferring and redesigning the managed care program for critically ill children. SB 1174 on foster home licensure transfers, SB 1620 implementing mental health and substance use commission recommendations, SB 1568 revising e-prescribing exemptions, and SB 788 on veterans nursing home beds were also reported favorably. The committee had more extensive debate on SB 1270, the Department of Health agency package, which included provisions on vaccination status, medical marijuana background screening, licensing and compact issues, and sovereign immunity for volunteer dental workers; it passed after an amendment and several members voiced concerns about patient treatment and “voting power” language. SB 1606 on patient access to records drew strong opposition from providers and health information professionals over privacy, HIPAA, and administrative burdens; it was initially reported unfavorably, then reconsidered and ultimately passed after a motion to reconsider. Other bills reported favorably included SB 1736 on insulin administration by direct support professionals and relatives, SB 1808 on patient refunds from providers, SB 1842 on referral disclosure of network status, SB 1354 on behavioral health managing entity oversight, SB 1768 on stem cell therapies with informed consent requirements, and SPB 7032 on presumptive Medicaid eligibility for permanently disabled individuals, which was submitted and reported as a committee bill. The meeting ended after all agenda items were handled and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Commonwealth cannot prohibit an abortion unless, in the physician's professional judgment, it is
• physical or mental health of, the pregnant individual, or when, in the physician's professional judgment
• I mean, I think that... ...judgment, the physician says the fetus is not viable.
• provided that in no circumstance shall the Commonwealth prohibit an abortion when, in the professional judgment
• is medically indicated. ...shall the Commonwealth prohibit an abortion when, in the professional judgment

Committee: House Privileges and Elections

Transcript Highlights:

• producer, pre-appointment affidavit, cancellation of appointment, and provides relative to forfeiture judgments

Bills: SCR59 , SCR70 , HR275 , HR279 , HR282 , HR289 , HR307 , HCR112 , SCR61 , SCR62 , SCR64 , SB121 , HR310 , HR314 , HR316 , HR317 , HR321 , HCR117 , SCR5 , SCR29 , SCR33 , SCR37 , SCR63 , SCR30 , SCR40 , SCR65 , HCR3 , HCR49 , HCR66 , HCR67 , HB54 , HB137 , HB321 , HB368 , HB386 , HB414 , HB431 , HB552 , HB555 , HB578 , HB590 , HB593 , HB618 , HB638 , HB670 , HB692 , HB707 , HB708 , HB715 , HB718 , HB732 , HB741 , HB748 , HB776 , HB796 , HB807 , HB822 , HB848 , HB856 , HB887 , HB888 , HB917 , HB921 , HB1082 , HB1243 , HB1246 , HB1 , HB2 , HB42 , HB45 , HB71 , HB79 , HB126 , HB133 , HB159 , HB213 , HB218 , HB222 , HB289 , HB291 , HB312 , HB313 , HB324 , HB352 , HB383 , HB398 , HB403 , HB429 , HB457 , HB459 , HB549 , HB571 , HB579 , HB591 , HB608 , HB616 , HB624 , HB766 , HB769 , HB783 , HB804 , HB864 , HB874 , HB909 , HB951 , HB971 , HB983 , HB1005 , HB1017 , HB1051 , HB1056 , HB1126 , HB1186 , HB1193 , HB1223 , HB1224 , HB1235 , HB1249 , SB259 , SB295 , SB312 , SB348 , SB444 , SB485 , SB441 , SB149 , HB359 , SB29 , SB43 , SB78 , HB463 , HB998 , SB197 , SB268 , SB123 , SB276 , SB326 , SB80 , HB901 , HR20 , HR74 , HCR65 , HCR71 , HCR98 , HB284 , HB306 , HB341 , HB366 , HB393 , HB458 , HB577 , HB603 , HB605 , HB614 , HB625 , HB646 , HB733 , HB752 , HB773 , HB798 , HB911 , HB955 , HB996 , HB1035 , HB1069 , HB1113 , HB1140 , HB1180 , HB1191 , HB1240 , HB1255 , SB82 , SB89 , SB97 , SB479 , HB74 , HB119 , HB134 , HB210 , HB258 , HB468 , HB784 , HB870 , HB953 , HB956 , HB1117 , HB1236 , SB42 , SB208 , SB217 , SB274 , SB300 , SB341 , SB379 , SB382 , SB387 , SB401 , SB449 , SB487

Keywords: Major Richard Star Act, veterans, military retirement, disability compensation, VA benefits, combat-wounded, medically retired, military retirees, service members, veterans benefits, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense, concurrent receipt, retirement offset, combat-related disability, bipartisan support, memorial resolution, Congressional memorial, Louisiana delegation, Richard Star

Bills: HR179 , HR180 , HR181 , HR182 , HR183 , HR184 , HR185 , HR186 , HR187 , HCR75 , HCR76 , HCR77 , HCR78 , HCR79 , HR165 , HR166 , HR168 , HR169 , HR170 , HR171 , HR172 , HR173 , HR174 , HR175 , HR176 , HR177 , HR178 , HCR65 , HCR66 , HCR67 , HCR68 , HCR69 , HCR70 , HCR71 , HCR72 , HCR73 , HCR74 , SCR34 , SB34 , SB43 , SB52 , SB56 , SB165 , SB173 , SB189 , SB190 , SB260 , SB322 , SB345 , SB374 , SB387 , SB401 , SB448 , SB449 , SB455 , SB487 , SB496 , SB502 , SB505 , HB362 , HB893 , HB990 , HB1007 , HB1153 , HB1243 , HR1 , HR17 , HCR5 , HCR4 , HCR47 , HB55 , HB385 , HB394 , HB396 , HB406 , HB608 , HB622 , HB676 , HB772 , HB897 , HB1030 , HB1035 , HB1038 , HB1045 , HB1049 , HB1056 , HB1058 , HB1059 , HB1092 , HB1100 , HB1117 , HB1160 , HB1161 , HB1162 , HB1177 , HB1180 , HB1189 , HB1216 , HB1239 , HB1240 , HB59 , HB74 , HB159 , HB330 , HB364 , HB414 , HB458 , HB525 , HB568 , HB786 , HB1008 , HB1033 , HB1034 , HB1041 , HB1062 , HB1070 , HB1079 , HB1112 , HB1118 , HB1139 , HB1151 , HB1176 , HB1182 , HB1196 , HB1214 , HB1241 , HB87 , HB115 , HB162 , HB368 , HB433 , HB441 , HB447 , HB466 , HB481 , HB741 , HB1242 , SB162 , SB349 , SB350 , SB382 , SB383 , SB127 , SB244 , HB977 , HB181 , HB31 , HB664 , HB9 , HB192 , HB225 , HB306 , HB310 , HB366 , HB635 , HB911 , HB1230 , HB1236 , HB615 , HB864 , HB1103 , HB1175 , HB901 , HR20 , HR74 , HB284 , HB393 , HB459 , HB577 , HB582 , HB605 , HB614 , HB682 , HB733 , HB773 , HB996 , HB1003 , HB1082 , HB1113 , HB1234

Keywords: neighborhood, crime prevention, security districts, law enforcement, community safety, funding, Counseling Day, mental health, Louisiana Counseling Association, community support, mental wellness, Louisiana State University, athletics, NAIA, sports achievements, recognition, success, competition, education, higher education

Transcript Highlights:

• I guess my thinking is that a commissioner doesn't issue any type of order or judgment without a judge
• I notice you said that if they were obtained a judgment, then the maintenance could be reduced.
• That would indicate to me that if he filed civil judgment, you don't get it.
• That would indicate to me that if he filed civil judgment, you don't get any maintenance automatically
• in his or her favor, the child maintenance shall be offset by the judgment awarded in the civil action

Committees: House Judiciary , House Judiciary and Civil and Criminal Jurisprudence

Transcript Highlights:

• a civil judgment that follows the<00:19:06.120><c> person</c><00:19:07.120><c> uh</c><00:19:07.440><
• But I think it really depends on the case and what that civil judgment is under the circumstances.
• Uh, in that case it leaves us in a situation where we could win the case, get a judgment, but really
• can't do meaningful enforcement action on the judgment or collection action of the judgment.
• or collection action of on the Judgment or collection action of the<00:53:35.200><c> Judgment</c><00

Committee: Senate Judiciary

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard testimony on several bills. SB 335 would route objections by political party officers to candidate nomination papers through the Office of Elections. The State Election Director testified that his office was not the right venue for party-membership challenges because it could create conflicts and force the Attorney General to represent the chief election officer in court; members discussed whether all objections should instead go directly to Circuit Court, but no action was taken. SB 280 would expand first-degree negligent injury to cover injuries negligently caused by intoxicated drivers. The Public Defender opposed the bill as too harsh and urged either a lower penalty or clearer statutory definitions of “under the influence,” while the Prosecuting Attorney supported it as a needed increase in accountability for drunk drivers who actually injure someone. Committee members raised concerns about overlap with existing offenses, proportionality, and whether the change would increase jury-trial volume; the prosecutor responded that the bill would apply to a smaller subset of cases involving actual injury and would help ensure more serious treatment of those cases. The committee also heard SB 292, establishing Safe Harbor protections for survivors of sexual exploitation who seek medical or law enforcement assistance, with testimony in support from the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, HPD, U Alliance, and others, and no opposition. SB 31, concerning an additional penalty for dog owners whose dogs destroy property on agricultural land, drew only supportive testimony. SB 356 would require restitution in the form of financial support to the minor children of victims killed or disabled by an intoxicated driver; the Public Defender opposed it as better suited to civil court and questioned enforcement after probation, while the Prosecuting Attorney supported it and said courts can issue enforceable restitution orders. Testimony also strongly supported SB 1284, a proposed constitutional amendment prohibiting discrimination based on ethnicity, age, disability, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy, and pregnancy outcomes, with supporters arguing it would strengthen protections in response to current political conditions. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• Because you can record an order and a judgment in the probate office.
• I guess if it is a civil judgment, you could record it.
• ><c> in</c> a judgment, you can record a judgment in a judgment, you can record a judgment in the<00:
• </c><00:56:33.680><c> So,</c> civil judgment, you could record it.
• So, civil judgment, you could record it.

Committee: House Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• Say I issue a judgment, or there's a consent judgment, and then a party subsequently comes in and files
• Well, that protective order is going to be a later, I guess, judgment or order that would modify my judgment
• And it could be in the same district, and they're aware that there's a new or an old judgment.
• party may seek to try to modify that judgment.
• It's just, you know, we do try to talk, but we have to know about the existing judgment.

Bills: HCR6 , HCR19 , HB81 , HB134 , HB154 , HB163 , HB170 , HB194 , HB254 , HB318 , HB410 , HB473 , HB485 , HB718 , HB970

Committee: House Civil Law and Procedure

Keywords: HCR 6, House Concurrent Resolution 6, successions, intestate succession, testate succession, disinheritance, disinherison, forced heirship, forced heir, legitime, estranged heir, estranged child, inheritance, estate planning, wills, testaments, Civil Code Article 1617, Civil Code Article 1618, Civil Code Article 1619, Civil Code Article 1620