Louisiana House Bill HB497

Louisiana 2010 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/29/10
• Refer: 3/29/10
• Report Pass: 4/15/10
• Engrossed: 4/27/10
• Report Pass: 6/2/10
• Enrolled: 6/17/10
• Chaptered: 6/29/10
• Passed: 6/29/10

Caption

Provides for certain information to be sent to the judicial administrator of the Supreme Court

Impact

The bill establishes a fee structure where both the clerk of court and the office of the judicial administrator will charge a processing fee of five dollars each, to be submitted as court costs in each relevant suit. This fee is only applicable at the conclusion of a case, ensuring that costs do not burden individuals during the ongoing legal process. Additionally, HB497 repeals previous regulations that required the reporting of damages to the commissioner of insurance, thereby reducing the complexity and potential administrative burden of reporting requirements overall.

Summary

House Bill 497 introduces significant changes to the reporting process of legal actions within the Louisiana judicial system. The bill mandates that when a suit is filed in state district court for damages arising from offenses or quasi offenses, such as wrongful death, specific information must be reported to the judicial administrator of the Supreme Court. This represents a shift in how legal actions are documented and monitored within the state, aiming to streamline the reporting process and increase efficiency in judicial administration.

Sentiment

Generally, the sentiment around HB 497 appears to be supportive of simplifying the legal process and enhancing the efficiency of court operations. Proponents argue that this legislation will reduce redundancy and streamline the flow of information within the judicial system. However, some concerns were raised about the implications of limiting the availability of certain information as detailed in the new reporting structure, especially regarding transparency and accessibility of court-related data.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding HB 497 include the decision to restrict the subpoena of information reported to the judicial administrator. This aspect of the bill raises questions about the balance between efficient legal administration and the need for accountability and transparency in judicial processes. Critics may argue that limiting access to such information could shield important data from scrutiny, impacting public trust in the judicial system.