Video & Transcript Research : 'injunctive relief'

Page 1 of 250
OK

Oklahoma 2026 Regular Session

Local and County Government Feb 17th, 2026 at 02:00 pm

Local and County Government

Transcript Highlights:
  • Senator Logan, I think that your intention behind running this bill is to provide some relief to the
  • designated a sex offender or sexual predator, somebody that's arrested for violating a protective injunction
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Land & Resource Management May 22nd, 2025

Land & Resource Management

Transcript Highlights:
  • Property owners have a right to bring declaratory, injunctive, or mandamus actions against unlawful zoning
  • It's like a positive injunction, right? Okay. And so, mandamus...
  • This declaratory relief, if they've done an ordinance, the court can declare it.
  • before the effective date of this act, the property owner may elect to dismiss the action and seek relief
Bills: SB2215, SB2639
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Senate of the 89th Legislature Feb 19th, 2025 at 11:00 am

Texas Senate Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • bill also creates a pathway for a taxpayer or resident of the political subdivision to seek junctive relief
  • Right, and the bill provides for injunctive relief.
  • for making the bail, so it would just depend on what the evidence was shown at the time of the injunctive
  • It does allow for attorney's fees for the citizens seeking injunctive.
TX

Texas 89th 2nd C.S.

Criminal Jurisprudence Apr 29th, 2025

Criminal Jurisprudence

Transcript Highlights:
  • We have noticed that habeas relief under this is only being reserved for the strongest claims.
  • So that simple change in the law, I think, will give a lot of relief to a lot of people.
  • Since the law's inception, 19 people who didn't have lawyers have sought relief under the law.
  • Only one of them received relief, and he was already out on parole.
  • Second, HB 115 alters the standard of relief to reasonable likelihood.
Bills: HB115
Summary: The Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence reconvened with a quorum present and announced it would likely not vote that night because of confusion over the bill list; members were told a definitive list would be circulated the next morning and a formal meeting would be scheduled later. The chair then heard a series of bills, generally taking testimony and leaving each pending without action. House Bill 1847 would set maximum caseload standards for private attorneys handling indigent criminal appointments through the Texas Indigent Defense Commission; House Bill 2417 would expand compensation eligibility for some wrongfully imprisoned people; House Bill 2813 would require earlier and more specific victim notice of scheduled court proceedings; and House Bill 2309 would expand state and local authority in certain civil asset forfeiture cases involving human trafficking, health care fraud, and organized crime. Each bill was laid out by its author or a member, with no opposition witnesses registered, and each was left pending. The committee also heard House Bill 4733, which would require sealing records for people acquitted of charges when they were not convicted on the related allegation; House Bill 2328, which would modernize expunction service by encouraging electronic notice, setting a standardized fee when electronic service is unavailable, extending clerk retention of expunction orders, and preserving certain mental health commitment orders; and House Bill 115, which would revise Texas’s “junk science” post-conviction writ law by providing counsel, changing the relief standard, requiring written decisions, and easing procedural barriers. Testimony on HB 2328 was mixed: county clerks supported the bill as a cost-saving modernization, while legal advocates warned that permanent retention of expunction orders could undermine true expunction and create privacy risks. HB 115 drew support from innocence and defense organizations, with some concern about a provision affecting subsequent writs. All were left pending after testimony. Later, the committee heard House Bill 2046, which would allow affirmative family-violence findings for any Penal Code offense rather than only Title V offenses; testimony from a Dallas County prosecutor and a committee member emphasized that family violence can involve arson, burglary, fraud, and other non-Title V conduct, and the bill was left pending. House Bill 1765 would tighten restrictions on no-knock warrants by requiring higher-level approval, judicial review, and identifiable officers; members discussed the dangers highlighted by the Harding Street raid and similar incidents, and the bill was also left pending. The meeting ended with the chair noting that some bills had been removed from the agenda at the author’s request and that members should be prepared to finalize the vote list the next day.
TX

Texas 89th 2nd C.S.

Trade, Workforce & Economic Development Mar 19th, 2025

Trade, Workforce & Economic Development

Transcript Highlights:
  • Service member Civil Relief Act SCRA protections for a military personnel while on active duty and up
  • month, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted a preliminary injunction
  • directly regulated by a law, but whose speech is prevented or chilled by it to assert claims for relief
Bills: HB 186
TX

Texas 89th Regular

Criminal Justice (Part II) Feb 12th, 2025

Criminal Justice

Transcript Highlights:
  • Their families get no remedy, no relief, no compensation.
  • Currently, 8 county jails have been deemed noncompliant, and 2 are being considered for injunctions by
NM

New Mexico 2026 Regular Session

House - Judiciary Feb 2nd, 2026 at 02:11 pm

House Judiciary

MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law Committee 2/24/26

Judiciary Finance and Civil Law

Transcript Highlights:
  • <00:10:58.160> prohibiting preliminary injunction prohibiting preliminary injunction prohibiting
  • But these cases were all for injunctive relief and not for relief for the harm caused to the individual
  • But these cases were all for injunctive But these cases were all for injunctive relief<00:31:40.480
  • > for<00:31:41.600> the<00:31:41.760> harm relief and not for relief for the harm
  • relief and not for relief for the harm caused<00:31:42.799> to<00:31:42.960> the<00:31