Connecticut House Bill HJ00211

Connecticut 2021 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/19/21
• Refer: 3/19/21
• Report Pass: 4/8/21
• Refer: 4/19/21
• Report Pass: 4/26/21
• Engrossed: 5/24/21
• Report Pass: 5/26/21
• Passed: 6/8/21

Caption

Resolution Authorizing The Claimant, The Estate Of Karon Nealy, To Sue The State.

Impact

The passage of HJ00211 has implications for state laws relating to the claims process and the responsibilities of the Office of the Claims Commissioner. By allowing a lawsuit to proceed, the resolution underscores the established legislative framework for adjudicating claims against the state. It also reinforces the principle that citizens should have recourse to legal remedies when their claims are not handled in a timely manner, potentially influencing future procedures for similar claims.

Summary

House Joint Resolution 211 (HJ00211) authorizes Barbara Makara to sue the state following a claim that has remained unresolved for over two years. This resolution arises from the conclusion that the claim, which was filed under the relevant provisions of state law, is entitled to judicial review after exceeding the typical timeframe for governmental responses. The resolution effectively permits the claimant to bypass procedural delays that have hindered the assertion of her rights against the state, thereby acknowledging the necessity for resolution in cases of unresolved claims.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding the passage of HJ00211 appears to be favorable, as the resolution passed unanimously in the Senate with a vote of 36 to 0. Supporters likely view this as a crucial measure to ensure that individuals can seek justice when state processes fail to address claims in an appropriate timeframe. This consensus indicates a collective acknowledgment of the need for accountability within state operations, particularly regarding responsiveness to citizen claims.

Contention

While HJ00211 did not encounter significant public opposition, it highlights ongoing discussions about the efficiency of the state’s claims process and the perceived obligations of the government to resolve legal complaints expeditively. The absence of dissenting opinions during voting suggests a uniform agreement on the necessity of this resolution; however, the underlying implications of the claims process could stir future debate regarding state accountability and the legal rights of individuals in cases against the government.