Video & Transcript Research : 'fee cap'

Page 20 of 499
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Intergovernmental Affairs Apr 22nd, 2025

Intergovernmental Affairs

Transcript Highlights:
  • There was a $2 million cap established in statute in 2011. I think it's important to know.
  • million cap.
  • It's just a cap.
  • You know, it's just removing an arbitrary cap. It's not mandating a $3 million. development.
  • Bowling's point, over time, this $2 million cap becomes very arbitrary.
OK
Transcript Highlights:
  • House Bill 3262 by George of the House and Hines of the Senate, relating to fees.
  • Do you know if there's any kind of cap on the civil cause? Not to my knowledge, sir.
  • I do not know that there is a cap. Thanks for that question. You're recognized for follow-up.
  • Senate Bill 2084 caps the amount awarded for a faculty member at a higher ed institution.
  • those fees from being based on the content.
OK
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Transportation Apr 22nd, 2025

Transportation

TX

Texas 89th Regular

Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence Apr 23rd, 2025 at 10:04 am

Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence

Transcript Highlights:
  • It is a drastic cap.
  • Fees.
  • He paid a flat fee.
  • Instead of replacing the current attorney's fees section, awarding fees...
  • fees for a frivolous motion.
Summary: The committee heard House Bill 4961, which would bar uninsured motorists from recovering non-economic damages after a collision. The author said the bill is intended to create incentives to maintain insurance and to address what he described as an unfair system for insured drivers. Texans for Lawsuit Reform and Texas Eagle Forum testified in support, while the Texas Trial Lawyers Association opposed it, warning the bill could also affect pedestrians, passengers, children, and others who did not choose whether a vehicle was insured. The bill author clarified that passengers would be included in the bill’s coverage. No vote was taken and the bill was left pending. House Bill 5570 would extend a legislative attorney CLE exemption to attorneys appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate to boards or commissions. The author said the measure is meant to ease time burdens and encourage service, and a witness supported it as a modest incentive for public service. A committee member noted a discrepancy in the number of affected attorneys, and the author agreed to verify the correct figure. The bill was left pending. The committee also heard House Bill 2969, which would restrict the State Bar from adopting rules or penalties that unreasonably burden attorneys’ religious exercise or free speech based on sincerely held beliefs. The author and several witnesses from Texas Values, Alliance Defending Freedom, and Cecilia Wood argued the bill protects lawyers of faith from an ABA model rule they described as a speech code. No one testified against the bill, and it was left pending. House Bill 4260, which would prohibit county judges and county commissioners from practicing law in courts over which they have jurisdiction, drew opposition from the County Judges and Commissioners Association, which argued existing ethics rules already address conflicts and that the bill would burden rural officials. The author said the bill was prompted by concerns about judges using their office to pressure others. The bill was left pending. House Bill 5134 would limit Rule 202 pre-suit depositions to people who have suffered or reasonably expect actual damages and would allow attorney’s fees against abusive petitioners. The author said the bill is aimed at preventing harassment and fishing expeditions, especially in family-law disputes. Questions focused on how the standard would work and how it differs from current law; the author said the main change is fee-shifting and a clearer legislative directive. The bill was left pending. House Bill 3095, a committee substitute version of a similar uninsured-motorist bill, would bar uninsured motorists from recovering non-economic damages and limit economic recovery, with several exceptions. Trial lawyers argued it was unconstitutional because it capped economic damages and could unfairly affect innocent drivers, pedestrians, and older people who no longer drive. The author acknowledged constitutional concerns and said the bill would need further work; the committee withdrew the substitute and left the bill pending. Finally, House Bill 4388 would require all judges, including county judges who perform administrative duties, to remain subject to the Code of Judicial Conduct. Supporters said some elected judges avoid accountability by relinquishing judicial functions, while opponents argued the bill is too rigid and unnecessary because existing remedies already exist. House Bill 3964 would limit public nuisance claims to their historical role and bar such claims against lawful conduct, conduct already covered by other remedies, and products. The author and supporters said the bill is meant to prevent courts from using public nuisance to make policy, while opponents argued it would eliminate useful remedies and could affect local actions against environmental or product-related harms. The author said the bill would not affect statutory nuisance claims, private nuisance claims, or other causes of action, and would be amended to clarify some provisions. The bill was left pending.
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence Apr 23rd, 2025 at 10:04 am

Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence

Transcript Highlights:
  • It is a drastic cap.
  • Fees.
  • He paid a flat fee.
  • fees for a frivolous motion.
  • fees for a frivolous motion.
Summary: The committee heard testimony on several bills affecting civil practice, judicial conduct, and attorney regulation. HB 4961 and the similar HB 3095 would bar uninsured motorists from recovering non-economic damages after a collision, with HB 3095 also addressing certain exceptions and limiting economic damages in some cases. Supporters said the measures would encourage insurance coverage and fairness for insured drivers, while opponents argued they would unfairly punish injured people who were not responsible for the lack of insurance, including pedestrians, passengers, children, and others. HB 3095 drew constitutional concerns from witnesses, and the committee later withdrew the committee substitute and left the bill pending; HB 4961 was also left pending after questions about its scope, including passengers. HB 5570 would expand a continuing legal education exemption to attorneys appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate who serve on boards or commissions. The author and witness said the bill would free up time for public service while still requiring ethics training. A committee member raised a discrepancy in the number of attorneys covered, and the bill was left pending. HB 2969 would prohibit the State Bar from adopting rules or penalties that unreasonably burden attorneys’ religious exercise or free speech, especially in relation to sincerely held religious beliefs. Supporters framed it as a protection for lawyers of faith against an ABA-style speech code, while no one testified in opposition; the bill was left pending. HB 4260 would prohibit county judges and county commissioners from practicing law in courts over which they have jurisdiction. The author described it as an ethics measure to avoid conflicts of interest, but county officials and the County Judges and Commissioners Association opposed it, saying existing ethics rules already address conflicts and that the bill would impose hardships, especially in rural counties. The bill was left pending. HB 4388 would require all judges, including those who serve only in administrative roles, to remain subject to the Code of Judicial Conduct; supporters said some judges avoid discipline by relinquishing judicial functions, while opponents said the bill was unnecessary and could burden county judges who serve as administrators. It was also left pending. The committee also heard HB 5134, which would limit Rule 202 pre-suit depositions to people who have suffered or reasonably expect to suffer actual damages and allow attorney’s fees against abusive petitioners. The author said the bill would curb harassment and fishing expeditions, but members questioned how the standard would work in practice; the bill was left pending. Finally, HB 3964 would narrow common-law public nuisance claims by barring suits over lawful conduct, conduct already addressed by other remedies, and products, while preserving other causes of action. Supporters said the bill would prevent regulation through litigation and protect legislative authority; opponents said it would eliminate important remedies and that no Texas abuse had been shown. The author indicated he would revise the bill, and it was left pending.
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence Apr 23rd, 2025

Judiciary & Civil Jurisprudence

Transcript Highlights:
  • It does not create liability but does allow parties to seek attorney's fees and costs in some instances
  • And is there a cap or minimum? Is there? It's going to be in the Justice Court dollar jurisdiction.
  • It also addresses a... ...recent case about characterizing the fees that arise from enforcement in the
  • That was one of the arrangements we discussed; it was in exchange for the filing fee.
  • I had no problem with adding a fee to allow J.P.s more resources to deal with receiverships.
LA

Louisiana 2026 Regular Session

Senate May 5th, 2026

Louisiana Senate Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • to provide for new fee structures to be set by the department.
  • The last comprehensive permit fee adjustment was in 2016.
  • The comprehensive permit fee adjustment was in 2016.
  • The largest fee increase will be an annual air criteria pollutant fee, which will bring Louisiana's fee
  • The largest fee increase will be an annual air criteria pollutant fee, which will bring Louisiana's fee
Bills: SB524, SR108, SR109, SCR56, SCR57, SCR12, HB227, HB398, HB689, HB897, HB1029, HB1107, HB1217, HB221, HCR58, HB136, SB162, SB382, SCR33, SCR30, SB112, SB194, SB307, SB341, SB346, SB363, SB495, SB503, SB507, SB509, SB513, SB408, SB131, SB145, SB333, SB464, SB466, SB500, SB283, SB338, SB488, SB35, SB65, SB215, SB228, SB246, SB249, SB268, SB269, SB282, SB296, SB312, SB319, SB323, SB369, SB431, SB474, SB484, SB490, SB492, SB501, HCR14, HB537, HB652, HB653, HB661, HB726, HB756, HB851, HB964, HB966, HB34, HB35, HB48, HB474, HB553, HB758, HB852, HB10, HB16, HB36, HB44, HB46, HB52, HB61, HB78, HB98, HB102, HB124, HB126, HB131, HB135, HB141, HB142, HB164, HB170, HB171, HB179, HB194, HB231, HB245, HB280, HB292, HB294, HB297, HB305, HB336, HB337, HB351, HB436, HB594, HB789, HB956, HB957, HB995, HB1040, HB50, HB117, HB120, HB122, HB139, HB148, HB149, HB185, HB199, HB247, HB271, HB286, HB301, HB358, HB359, HB384, HB413, HB428, HB450, HB462, HB547, HB613, HB631, HB657, HB669, HB675, HB680, HB691, HB712, HB716, HB720, HB723, HB727, HB728, HB735, HB747, HB759, HB825, HB842, HB845, HB846, HB903, HB904, HB907, HB923, HB929, HB941, HB962, HB965, HB1036, HB287, HB370, HB515, HB521, HB570, HB1200, HB29, HB39, HB58, HB67, HB73, HB76, HB77, HB82, HB112, HB121, HB125, HB132, HB134, HB151, HB154, HB155, HB161, HB166, HB187, HB191, HB207, HB211, HB224, HB238, HB241, HB242, HB250, HB260, HB265, HB275, HB300, HB320, HB338, HB339, HB349, HB379, HB399, HB427, HB463, HB464, HB468, HB545, HB550, HB551, HB565, HB588, HB639, HB725, HB782, HB805, HB808, HB834, HB847, HB853, HB858, HB861, HB883, HB916, HB937, HB977, HB1012, HB1027, HB1044, HB1054, HB1071, HB1091, HB1117, HB119, HB129, HB677, HB850, SB68, SB149
AZ

Arizona 2026 Regular Session

02/17/2026 - House Natural Resources, Energy & Water

Natural Resources, Energy & Water

Transcript Highlights:
  • or the source of water that's prohibited for storage in this act, from both Colorado River water and CAP
  • water to just CAP water.
  • water that is otherwise transported by way of the CAP aqueduct.
  • However, this bill, and I know it's a work in progress, would threaten our ability to use CAP water,
  • contractor can order their water from CAP was stricken from the bill.
Summary: The committee heard a series of water, energy, housing, and environmental bills, with several measures amended before passage. House Bill 2099, as amended, would limit long-term storage credits and related CAP water storage during declared Colorado River shortages; water utilities, CAP, Phoenix, and other water interests raised concerns about flexibility, contracts, and the law of the river, while the sponsor said the bill was intended to address shortage conditions. The committee adopted the Griffin amendment and passed the bill 6-3. House Bill 2263, also amended, would restrict where Colorado River water diverted for replenishment in an AMA may be stored; CAP, tribal counsel, and AMWA opposed it as too restrictive and potentially excluding existing facilities, but the bill passed 6-3 after amendment. House Bill 2264, requiring the University of Arizona to promote Arizona history and the five Cs through the mining museum, passed unanimously. House Bill 2330 and House Bill 2341, both concerning certificates of environmental compatibility for energy projects, passed 6-3 after amendments expanding siting factors to include character of an area and known off-takers, respectively. House Bill 2918, which would end certain tax benefits for renewable energy and storage equipment after 2026, also passed 6-3. House Bill 2889, appropriating $1 million for uranium contamination monitoring and a statewide registry with tribal epidemiology partnerships, passed unanimously after discussion about moving the program to ADEQ and adjusting the reporting date. House Bill 2492, which would bar state and local urban growth boundaries that prevent new development, passed narrowly 4-3 with one present and two absent. House Bill 2782, focused on utility rate transparency and regulatory assets, passed 5-3 after a late amendment and a motion to suspend committee rules for amendment distribution. House Bill 4025, creating a study committee on gasoline and petroleum refineries, passed 6-3, and HCR 2057 supporting a geothermal permitting roadmap passed unanimously. HCR 2020, supporting housing developments outside designated service areas under certain groundwater conditions, passed 6-2. House Bill 4100, requiring notice to customers about potential water-rate increases if CAP water is lost, drew concerns about public confusion and negotiation impacts; testimony from municipal water users opposed the bill as too speculative and difficult to implement, and the transcript ends while that bill is still under discussion.