Resolution Vacating The Decision Of The Claims Commissioner To Deny The Claim Against The State Of Kimberly R. Rice And Authorizing The Claimant To Sue The State.
Impact
The passage of HJ00034 has implications for state law regarding claims against the government. By allowing Rice to sue the state, the resolution highlights the ability of citizens to challenge decisions made by the claims commissioner and seek redress through the judicial system. This could potentially set a precedent for other cases where individuals seek to contest denials from state entities, impacting how claims against the state are handled in future instances.
Summary
House Joint Resolution 34 (HJ00034) addresses a claim against the state made by Kimberly R. Rice. It specifically vacates the previous decision made by the claims commissioner, which denied her claim for damages exceeding twenty thousand dollars. The resolution authorizes Rice to initiate and pursue a legal action against the state to seek compensation for alleged injuries or property damages suffered. Importantly, the resolution sets a time limit for instituting this action, requiring it to be filed within one year from the adoption of the resolution by the General Assembly.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding HJ00034 appeared to be supportive among the Assembly members during the voting process, as indicated by the unanimous vote of 150 yeas and no nays. Such overwhelming support suggests a consensus that the claims commissioner’s decision was not in favor of justice for the claimant, and the members recognized the importance of allowing individuals the right to pursue legal action against the state when they believe they have been wronged.
Contention
While there was no noted significant opposition to HJ00034, the potential for contention lies in the broader implications of allowing claims against the state. Issues may arise regarding the state's liability and how often such resolutions could allow claims that could strain state resources. Furthermore, the limitations imposed on the timeframe to initiate these actions could be points of contention for claimants who may need more time due to various circumstances surrounding their claim.
Resolution Vacating The Decision Of The Claims Commissioner To Deny The Claim Against The State Of Mark Stuart And Remanding The Matter To The Claims Commissioner For Further Proceedings.
Resolution Vacating The Decision Of The Claims Commissioner To Deny The Claim Against The State Of Haydee Silva And Remanding The Matter To The Office Of The Claims Commissioner For A De Novo Hearing On The Merits.