Transcript Highlights:

• :12.080> entity Litigation against a governmental entity Litigation against a governmental entity
• Um, one of the encourages litigation.
• Encourage you to encourage litigation.
• And um, you know, as a litigator, I can tell you I always told my clients that litigation should never
• It has a view encourages litigation.

Bills: SF0035, SF0090, SF0072

Keywords: education, cell phones, smart devices, school policy, student conduct, school property, rental fees, youth activities, education policy, Wyoming legislature, teacher licensure, teacher mobility, interstate compact, education compact, licensure reciprocity, reciprocal certification, teacher certification, professional teaching standards board, out-of-state teachers, military spouse

Transcript Highlights:

• They said five of the PBMs were still in litigation three years after Senate Bill 1550 was passed into
• Litigation is always an option in any case.
• The plans are paying a very small amount in most instances, forcing the providers to go into litigation
• My client alone, in the last few years, has spent hundreds of millions of dollars litigating these claims
• Do we do well in those litigation cases?

Transcript Highlights:

• clear procedural guidance on how to invoke voluntary trial resolution and it provides safeguards for litigants
• from the voluntary judge, it goes to the circuit judge and the circuit judge makes the actual mid-litigation
• The proposed amendment would provide much more certainty and encourage litigants where appropriate to
• We watched pro se litigants litigate domestic violence cases and we heard several domestic violence bills

Transcript Highlights:

• And part of that is hoping to prevent future litigation on the retaliation part.
• The way the bill is coming to you has some potential for litigation, the way it's written.
• And I really, I can litigate this. Using the name of your— I can litigate this.
• And we don't want to litigate it.
• But 24 months is fine, but this probably just needs to go to litigation.

Bills: HB387, HB673, HB947, HB975, HB1102, HB1228, HB1229, HCR66, SB102, SB165, SB280, SB291, SB326, SB521

Keywords: engineering, land surveying, construction, state fire marshal, plan review, security cameras, abandoned property, blighted structures, property management, digital assets, abandonment, custodian, escheatment, blockchain, cryptocurrency, unclaimed property, state treasurer, Department of Public Service, statutory entities, public administration

Transcript Highlights:

• future litigation on the retaliation part.
• The way the bill is coming to you has some potential for litigation, the way it's written.
• And I really, I can litigate this. Using the name of your— I can litigate this.
• And we don’t want to litigate it. When we talked to the commission, we said, 6-4-12 ...
• But 24 months is fine, but this probably just needs to go to litigation.

Summary: The committee first deferred House Bill 1102 without hearing it. It then took up House Concurrent Resolution 66, which urges Louisiana Economic Development and other state agencies to continue studying rural parishes’ economic assets, infrastructure, workforce, and development opportunities. Representative Weible and Secretary Bougoir described the resolution as part of a broader effort to align state rural programs and create a strategic framework for rural development. Members emphasized infrastructure, workforce training, local coordination, and retaining young people in rural communities. An amendment requiring LED to report to the legislature by January 1, 2027 was adopted, and HCR 66 was reported favorably as amended. The committee next considered Senate Bill 102, which would allow qualified trade associations for motor vehicle dealers to bring declaratory and injunctive actions against manufacturers on behalf of dealers. Senator Presley and the Louisiana Automobile Dealers Association said the bill would consolidate similar disputes into one action, reduce costs, and help smaller dealers avoid retaliation or uneven litigation. Questions focused on standing, the limited remedies, and whether the bill would affect nontraditional sales models. Technical amendments were adopted, and SB 102 was reported favorably as amended. Senate Bill 521, concerning banks’ continued use of a non-surviving bank’s name after mergers or consolidations, drew the most debate. Senator Boudreau and former Senator Fred Mills said the bill would preserve community-bank identity while following FDIC guidance on clear disclosure and consumer notice. Several members raised concerns about codifying federal guidance, future changes to federal rules, and whether the bill should instead set a fixed transition period; an amendment to limit use of the old name to 24 months was adopted after discussion. Another proposed amendment tying the bill to 1998 FDIC branch-name guidance failed on a roll call vote. The bill, as amended, was then reported favorably. The committee also advanced House Bill 387, which narrows the scope of incidental engineering work by architects and clarifies the state fire marshal’s authority to review plans under both architecture and engineering laws, and House Bill 1228, which updates hearing-aid dealer licensing and consumer-protection rules, including testing periods, cooling-off rights, and refund/cancellation procedures. Both bills were reported favorably with technical amendments. The transcript then shifted to additional measures, including House Bill 975 on Public Service Commission reconstitution and several Senate bills by Senator Abraham on self-storage facilities and contractor licensing, but the provided text cuts off before those items are fully concluded.

Transcript Highlights:

• But litigation is expensive, whether it comes from Fish and Game's pocket or the AG's pocket.
• As far as litigation goes, we heard testimony in the public hearing that litigation happens.
• As far as litigation<01:06:43.440> goes,<01:06:43.760> we<01:06:43.920> heard<01
• :06:44.160> testimony<01:06:44.640> in litigation goes, we heard testimony in litigation
• the public hearing that litigation the public hearing that litigation happens.<01:06:48.160>

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I was made aware of a case where the litigant and the petitioner filed a modification and actually won
• I think there's also a reduction of potential litigation over the meaning of how some of these statutes
• I am a trust and estate litigation attorney here in Austin, and I'm the co-chair of legislative.
• But you're going to try to litigate to get that first contempt just to see if someday you can get a second
• The orders would be my advice to that litigant.

Bills: HB368, HB3311, HB1734, HB2495, HB2716, HB793, HB3376, HB2524, HB3421, HB3446, HB3181

Keywords: electronic devices, family violence, criminal prosecution, protective orders, tracking, harassment, family allowance, decedent's estate, surviving spouse, minor children, inheritance, child support, maintenance, HB 1734, Family Code, Section 155.207, suit affecting the parent-child relationship, SAPCR, continuing exclusive jurisdiction, jurisdiction transfer

Transcript Highlights:

• It establishes a procedure for litigants to depose individuals who are out of state to obtain production
• We have seen survivors threatened with litigation that most cannot afford to defend against.
• In my role, I also oversee our litigation, and I was frankly floored to see thousands of no-fault suits
• I'm a California partner of Boyce Schiller and Flexner, and I co-lead a BSF sexual misconduct litigation
• and the tremendous mental anguish that we see them go through during that litigation.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on bills in the Civil Actions 2 and Court Administration areas, with testimony spanning judicial security, judicial compensation, civil process fees, bar advocate compensation, interstate discovery, defamation protections for sexual assault survivors, and related criminal procedure changes. Chairs Edwards and Day opened with housekeeping rules on testimony limits and written submissions, then called witnesses on each bill in turn. On H. 1766, judicial officers and the Massachusetts Bar Association strongly supported a judicial security bill that would protect judges’ personal information, citing threats, online harassment, swatting, and violence against judges and their families. On H. 1819, judges and the Massachusetts Judges Conference asked for higher compensation, saying Massachusetts judges rank low nationally after cost-of-living adjustment and that pay affects recruitment and retention. The committee also heard support for H. 1582/S. 1183 to raise civil process service fees, with sheriffs saying the fees have been unchanged since 2003 and are needed to cover rising costs, safety equipment, and operations funded by those fees. The committee heard from prosecutors on H. 1604 and H. 1846, which would give district courts concurrent jurisdiction over certain school-threat and leaving-the-scene offenses, allowing prosecutors to handle less serious or panic-driven cases more efficiently while preserving mandatory penalties. CPCS and bar advocates supported H. 1876 on bar advocate compensation, describing a continuing shortage and crisis in indigent defense despite recent pay increases and staffing investments. The Boston Bar Association supported H. 1857, a Massachusetts version of the Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act, saying it would simplify out-of-state discovery and reduce cost and delay. A large portion of the hearing focused on H. 1974/S. 1143, which would protect survivors of sexual assault and harassment from retaliatory defamation suits unless the plaintiff proves actual malice, and would allow fee shifting and damages against abusive suits. Survivors, advocates, and attorneys described threats, legal costs, and chilling effects that silence reporting, while supporters said the bill would protect truthful speech and improve access to counsel. The committee also heard insurance-industry testimony on S. 1101, which would change personal injury protection payment rules to require insurers to tender disputed amounts within 30 days to avoid attorney’s fees; insurers said the bill would curb a growing volume of provider lawsuits and reduce abuse of the no-fault system. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the chair closed after all scheduled testimony was complete.

Transcript Highlights:

• The Claims Review, Litigation Reports Oversight Committee Subcommittee met on Monday, March 16, 2026.
• The subcommittee reviewed 13 litigation reports and one litigation settlement.
• thank you claims report senator dotson you're recognized thank you mr chairman the claims review litigation
• reports and one litigation settlement one dismissed claim appealed by the claimants was referred to
• the joint budget committee's claims review litigation reports oversight subcommittee the subcommittee

Keywords: 1204, all

Transcript Highlights:

• There's also $500,000 in one-time money for litigation expenses uh for a suit that the Campaign Finance
• expenses uh for a suit for litigation expenses uh for a suit that<00:02:27.040> the<00:02:27.200
• So maybe we would have to put more into the litigation funds for future.
• <00:08:38.320> Um<00:08:38.640> but the litigation funds for future.
• Um but the litigation funds for future.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• income that's unsound tax policy, constitutionally impaired, untested in courts, a significant litigation
• And there's going to be long litigation on them, and they're the only states I'm ever aware of that have
• If you want to get in line behind them, good luck, but that's going to be a long litigation, and anything
• you... ...get in line behind them, good luck, but that's going to be a long litigation, and anything
• If somebody wants to pay me in a litigated case, I'll do anything in any state Supreme Court.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue, chaired by Senator James Eldridge and Representative Adrian Madaro, opened its hearing with a moment of silence for the late Lowell State Senator Ed Kennedy and reviewed hearing procedures and deadlines. The committee then took testimony on several corporate tax bills, including S. 2033/H. 3110 on offshore tax avoidance, H. 3248 on a manufacturing tax exemption, H. 3057 on a tiered corporate minimum tax, and S. 2041 on a corporate tax haven blacklist, along with a separate business interest deduction bill. No votes were taken during the hearing. Supporters of S. 2033/H. 3110, including labor unions, health care workers, educators, public health advocates, seniors, and several legislators, argued that Massachusetts needs new revenue to offset federal cuts to Medicaid, SNAP, health care, education, and other services. They said the bill would raise roughly $400 million annually by increasing the share of offshore profits included in the state tax base from 5% to 50%, and they framed it as a fairness measure that would require large multinational corporations to pay more while leaving most local businesses and workers unaffected. Testimony emphasized risks to MassHealth, PCA services, adult dental care, hospitals, schools, and public health programs if new revenue is not raised. Opponents, including the Mass Taxpayers Foundation and the Council on State Taxation, argued the proposal is poor tax policy and likely unconstitutional because it would tax foreign-source income without allowing foreign tax credits or a comparable apportionment method. They said Massachusetts should take a broader, coordinated approach to federal tax changes rather than a standalone bill, and warned of litigation risk and possible double taxation. Supporters such as MassBudget and former tax counsel Don Griswold countered that the bill is a reasonable rough-justice approach, consistent with federal and neighboring-state treatment, and that it would primarily affect a small number of very large multinationals. On S. 2041, the Global Business Alliance opposed the proposed tax haven blacklist, while supporting a separate bill allowing business interest deductibility.

Transcript Highlights:

• could be, they would choose not to use skilled local union labor because they don't want future litigation
• It was intended to eliminate litigation under the provisions of the current law.
• It was intended to eliminate litigation under the provisions of the current law.
• . to put it in perspective. which we think is going to incentivize litigation.
• So that is, that's also a huge concern of, you know, lots of litigation around this.

Bills: S0198, S0422, S1236, S1356, S1456, S1722

Keywords: virtual currency, kiosks, money services business, regulation, financial services, consumer protection, cryptocurrency, registration, ADS-B, automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast, aviation, airports, airport fees, landing fees, departure fees, touch-and-go landing, general aviation, pilot privacy, airspace radius, aircraft tracking

Summary: The committee first postponed SB 1456, then heard SB 1236, which would condition state economic development incentives on employers using secret-ballot union elections and prohibit neutrality agreements. The sponsor argued the bill protects workers from coercion and applies only to companies receiving taxpayer-funded incentives; opponents said it was government interference, likely to hurt contractors, apprenticeships, and business growth, and raised concerns about federal preemption and Attorney General enforcement. After debate, the committee reported SB 1236 favorably on a recorded vote. The committee then considered CS/SB 198, a measure to regulate cryptocurrency kiosks by requiring operator registration, fraud warnings, transaction limits, blockchain analytics, receipts, and refund protections for certain first-time transactions tied to fraud. Supporters from the banking industry, AARP, and others said the bill would help stop scams that are targeting seniors and vulnerable adults; one industry witness supported the bill but suggested narrowing the limits for existing users and shortening the new-customer period. The committee reported the bill favorably. Next, the committee took up CS/SB 1356 on dog breeding, pet sales, and breeder registration. The sponsor said the bill is intended to curb puppy mills, improve animal welfare, and add consumer protections, while an amendment removed state oversight of local animal shelters. Pet store representatives supported much of the bill but objected to the three-day waiting period for financed purchases, expanded reimbursement, and unfair trade practice penalties; others argued the bill would add red tape and litigation. The committee adopted the amendment and then reported the bill favorably. The committee also heard SB 1722 on app stores and minors, which would require age verification, parental consent for minors, app-content disclosures, and enforcement by the Department of Legal Affairs. Supporters said the bill would help parents protect children online; opponents warned it could force collection of sensitive personal data, create privacy and constitutional problems, and duplicate existing parental tools. Members debated the balance between child safety and privacy, and the committee reported the bill favorably. Finally, the committee heard CS/SB 422 on ADS-B aviation data, which would bar use of ADS-B information to calculate certain landing or access fees; an amendment added departures to the restriction. Pilots supported the bill as a safety and privacy measure, while airport representatives opposed it as undermining airport finances and shifting costs. The amendment was adopted, and the hearing on the bill began with testimony from both sides.

Transcript Highlights:

• I understand, too, this may be the subject of pending litigation, perhaps in Franklin Circuit Court.
• I think if that's the case, generally the legislature has taken a tact of allowing litigation to proceed
• I understand, too, this may be the subject of pending litigation, perhaps in Franklin Circuit Court.
• litigation perhaps in Frank<00:18:53.960> in<00:18:54.200> fet<00:18:54.600> Circuit
• to proceed before of allowing litigation to proceed before addressing<00:19:05.120> uh<00:19:

Keywords: Intro: 00:00 Attendance Roll Call: 00:31 Discussion of SB 122: 02:30 Roll Call Vote on SB 122: 26:47, 958, all

Summary: The Senate Agriculture Committee took up Senate Bill 122, a measure dealing with pet stores, breeders, and the scope of local regulation. The chair explained the bill was intended to balance private business rights with local control, and said he wanted to clarify definitions such as qualified breeder, local authority, and where fees and fines would go. He also said he would work on a floor amendment and noted concerns about whether the bill would allow localities to outright ban pet stores or instead only regulate them. The committee first adopted a committee substitute by motion and voice vote. Supporters of the bill, including representatives from Petland and an attorney who had worked on animal-related regulation in Ohio, argued that the bill would create statewide standards, protect responsible pet retailers from what they described as politically motivated local bans, and preserve consumer choice. They said local governments would still be able to inspect, require documentation, and enforce licensing, but not shut businesses down without due process. A senator from Campbell County asked whether the bill would interfere with strong local ordinances; supporters responded that the bill would set standards higher than USDA rules and still allow local regulation, while opposing local bans. Opposition came from the Kentucky League of Cities and representatives of Kentucky animal care and control agencies. KLC said local decisions should remain at the local level and noted that several cities and one county already had ordinances that could be affected; it also said the bill was opposed by its board and might overlap with pending litigation. Animal control representatives said the bill did not clearly define breeder verification or enforcement responsibility, could restrict local authority, and did not address animal care conditions or consumer transparency. After questions and debate, the committee voted on the bill; the roll call ended in a 5-5 tie, and Senate Bill 122 failed to pass out of committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• You were asking questions about litigation. I'm a litigator.
• And he said, "Well, litigation is the world's most expensive indoor activity."
• .<01:29:23.360> I'm<01:29:23.480> a<01:29:23.560> litigator.
• I'm a litigator. And as a litigation. I'm a litigator.
• And as a young young young litigator, litigator, litigator, when<01:29:28.240> when<01:29:28.720

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We, WellPoint, also have an open litigation and pending litigation with the agency on the STAR Plus procurement
• information based upon litigation privilege.
• I do not believe we are a party to the litigation.
• And again, this procurement is pending litigation.
• So my last statement is, you'll never have to litigate.

Bills: HB149, HB252, HB643, HB1442, HB1500, HB1672, HB1851, HB1893, HB2028, HB2768, HB2818, HB149, HB252

Keywords: artificial intelligence, regulation, biometric data, ethical AI, consumer protection, AI governance, employment compensation, state agencies, salary payments, general appropriations, government efficiency, public works, contractors, payment bonds, government contracts, construction law, transparency, open meetings, government accountability, public access

Transcript Highlights:

• identifying how five foreign charities spent almost $2 billion bankrolling U.S. policy fights, litigation
• to either represent themselves or hire a lawyer, but in any case, That a litigant would have to either
• Would you say that what you've been through, you know what vexatious litigation is? Yes.
• Would you say that this has been vexatious litigation, or has this been, and granted it's your opinion
• Finally, the availability of jury demands would be misused to stall proceedings, drive up litigation

Bills: SB1285, SB1289, SB1326, SB1328, SB1329, SB1330, SB1392, SB1402, SB1425, SCR1013, SCR1014

Keywords: sentencing, correctional facilities, multiple sentences, death penalty, aggravating circumstances, juvenile offenses, class 2 felony, foreign donations, election administration, certification, Arizona Revised Statutes, transparency, public disclosure, victims' rights, attorney fees, government accountability, right to counsel, legal representation, parents' rights, family law

Summary: The committee approved the minutes and then took up several election, family court, and criminal justice bills. SB 1425, the “big bill,” would move Arizona’s 2026 primary election date earlier and adjust related election administration timelines; the chair’s amendment moved the primary to July 21 and removed the shortened curing/ID deadlines. County officials testified in support, explaining the timing changes and the need to align dates, and the committee adopted the amendment and gave the bill a do-pass recommendation. SB 1289, dealing with certifications for entities providing money or resources for election administration and foreign funding disclosures, also received a do-pass recommendation after testimony from supporters arguing it would block foreign influence in election administration and ballot issue spending. The committee later heard SCR 1013, a related resolution that would more directly prohibit foreign-source money for election administration and ballot measures; the sponsor and supporters said it was similar to SB 1289 but broader, and testimony focused on foreign money flowing through nonprofit networks. The committee then considered SB 1326, which would allow courts to award attorney fees and costs to victims when a party violates or worsens a victim’s rights. A victim’s attorney testified that the bill would provide needed accountability and guidance, while opponents argued the term “exacerbates” was vague and that existing remedies already exist. The committee approved SB 1326 on a 4-3 vote. SB 1402, requiring courts to impose a fee on certain probationers to cover electronic monitoring costs, drew support from the sponsor and advocates who said offenders should pay for monitoring, and opposition from defense attorneys who warned it could burden indigent probationers and divert money from treatment; it also received a 4-3 do-pass recommendation. The most extensive debate was on SB 1330, which would allow a parent in certain custody cases to request a jury trial on parenting time or legal decision-making. Supporters, including several parents, described costly and traumatic family court experiences and argued a jury would provide a neutral check on judges and court-appointed professionals. County and court representatives opposed the bill, saying family cases require specialized judicial expertise, jury trials would delay urgent matters, increase costs, and risk confidentiality. Despite those concerns, the committee adopted the bill on a 4-3 vote. The committee also approved SB 1328, which declares state policy favoring parental rights and a child’s equal access to both co-parents, after adopting an amendment adding legislative intent language. Finally, SB 1329, which would let parents sue court-appointed professionals who deviate from professional ethics or standards in custody matters, passed 4-3 after testimony from parents and advocates who said court appointees lack accountability, while opponents said existing malpractice and licensing remedies already address misconduct.

Transcript Highlights:

• the local government and the property owner to work out a resolution so they don't have to go to litigation
• But under the current state of affairs, because it's not actual pending litigation—this is pre-litigation—a
• have the conversation about settlements in the shade, the way that they do with actual pending litigation
• but with all of the same existing procedural safeguards that exist today as it relates to pending litigation

Transcript Highlights:

• reasonable action on the surface, in reality, it is a move that will create further delays, more litigation
• The short answer is, as long as there are limits on licenses, there's going to be litigation.
• So the real question is, how do we get past the litigation?
• This will create a new round of litigation. I'm a lawyer, and I have attended... ...litigation.

Bills: SB185, SB194, SB72

Keywords: veterinary medicine, veterinarian-client-patient relationship, prescription refills, animal care, regulatory compliance, agriculture authority, eminent domain, property rights, tax exemption, agriculture center, medical cannabis, cannabis license, integrated facility license, Alabama Medical Cannabis Commission, AMCC, medical marijuana, dispensary, cultivation, processing, license appeal

Transcript Highlights:

• Ultimately, the taxes that I'm trying to vindicate are rather minimal, and the cost of litigation is
• this in a and I don't want to litigate this in a committee<00:08:22.319> room<00:08:22.720>
• is far more than what cost of litigation is far more than what the<00:09:24.839> individuals<
• this without House Bill cannot litigate this without House Bill 2<00:10:26.760> because<00:10
• It's up to the courts, and that's just a matter for litigation on that.

Keywords: Meeting start 00:00:29 Roll Call 00:00:40 HB 2 Discussion 00:02:55 HB 2 Vote 00:14:10 Kentucky Exposition Center Redevelopment Plan Discussion 00:17:22 HB 545 Discussion Only 00:39:15, 958, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 2, which would address the taxation of currency and bullion and was presented as a response to last session’s dispute over whether a line-item veto could be applied to a revenue measure. The sponsor said the bill, as amended by Committee Substitute 2, was largely technical but also made the tax exemption retroactive to August 1, 2024 while making the $1,000-per-day penalty prospective only. Members asked about fiscal impact, possible legal liability for executive branch officials, and whether the issue should instead be resolved by the courts. The sponsor argued the Constitution limits the governor’s line-item veto power to appropriations, not revenue bills, and said the bill would create a judicial remedy and refund process if the executive branch continued collecting the tax. The committee approved the committee substitute and then passed House Bill 2 by a vote of 19-1, with two members passing; the bill was reported favorably to the floor. During discussion, Representative Bojanowski voted no, saying he could not support removing taxes on gold bars while parents pay taxes on diapers. Representative Gentry passed, saying he supported the original intent but was not yet convinced and wanted more time to review the issue. The sponsor also clarified that any liability would be joint and several and could involve executive officials or their budgets if the tax collection continued despite the exemption. The committee then heard a discussion-only presentation on the Kentucky Exposition Center Redevelopment Plan Phase 2. Facility representatives described Phase 1 and the planned Phase 2 expansion, saying the center had record attendance and needed more space to remain competitive and meet client demand. They said Phase 1 was about 20% complete, with completion now expected in October 2026 and an opening target of December 31, 2026 after a short testing period. Phase 2 would follow, including demolition of the West Wing, utility work, and improvements to food service and circulation areas. They said the project would be funded without federal dollars and estimated that, once complete, it could generate about $683 million in annual economic impact, $302 million in state sales tax, and 850,000 room nights in Jefferson County.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's still in pending litigation.
• > uh more lengthy litigation, nor does it uh more lengthy litigation, nor does it really<01:37:41.600
• , increasing litigation costs.
• , increasing litigation costs.
• increasing litigation costs litigation increasing litigation costs you<01:53:44.639> know<01:

Bills: HB0068, HB0062, HB0127, HB0109

Keywords: veterans, property tax exemption, disabled, service-connected disability, Wyoming, governmental claims, liability limits, inflation adjustment, public safety, local government insurance, HB0127, recreation mill levy, recreational facilities, public recreation, mill levy, property tax, local tax, county commissioners, school district levy, voter approval