This was introduced by the Special Committee on Information Management, and assigned to the Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee. It would establish a new statute providing for limitations on disclosure and use of health information. The bill was re-referred to the Ways And Means Committee, which makes it exempt from all deadlines, and then re-referred back to the Public Health And Welfare Committee.

This bill was introduced by the Special Committee on Information Management, and assigned to the Senate Transportation and Tourism Committee. It relates to the records of the Division of Vehicles, and places restrictions on the release of some information. This bill has been killed by an adverse report by the committee.

This bill was introduced by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and assigned back to the same committee. It amends the civil procedure statutes to delete the figure of $75,000.00 as the highest amount that could be specified in a claim for relief to be the same as is specified in the Federal rules of civil procedure. This would permit Kansas to remain in conformity with the Federal rules without having to frequently amend our statute to conform to changes in the Federal statute. The bill passed the Senate, and was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. That committee had a hearing on it on March 8, 1999.

This bill was introduced by Sen. Clark and was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. It would provide that notwithstanding any provisions of law to the contrary, no person or entity could be held liable for damages resulting from an act of God. (What about insurance policies?) A hearing was held, but the committee took no action on it. Unless this bill is referred to an exempt committee, no further action will be taken on it.

This was introduced by and referred back to the Senate Judiciary Committee. It provides that district magistrate judges must have been a resident of the county for at least 6 months prior to being elected or appointed, and must maintain residency in the county while holding office. It is identical to HB 2352, which became law in 1999, and to HB 2329. It was re-referred to the Ways And Means Committee which exempts it from all deadlines, and then referred back to the Judiciary Committee. 

This bill was introduced by the Senate Judiciary Committee and referred back to that Committee. It relates to determination of criminal history classification, particularly with regard to assault adjudication’s and convictions. It passed the Senate, and was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. That Committee added a section concerning cruelty to animals. When the bill was debated on the floor, Rep. Feuerborn added a floor amendment concerning K.S.A. 21-3707, the criminal statute relating to giving a worthless check, by adding 2 words, "preexisting debt" to subsection (a), which is the definition portion of that statute. The bill remains in Conference Committee.

This bill was introduced by the Senate Assessment And Taxation Committee and referred back to that Committee. It relates to sales taxes, and concerns taxation of contractor and subcontractor services and materials. As written, it does not concern our groups. It is a bill to be watched as it goes through the legislative process to make sure that there is no attempt to amend the bill to make professional services subject to sales tax. This bill is exempt from all deadlines.

This bill was introduced by the Senate Committee on Financial Institutions and Insurance, and referred to the Senate Public Health And Welfare Committee. It concerns insurance companies, and deals with the privacy of medical records, and enacts the Health Information Privacy Act. Our concern in prior sessions concerning this type of legislation is that in the interest of protecting privacy, such legislation might make it difficult to obtain information needed for collection activities. It was re-referred to the Ways And Means Committee which exempts it from all deadlines, and then referred back to the Public Health And Welfare Committee.

This bill was introduced by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and referred to that Committee. It concerns the Consumer Protection Act, and prohibits the assignment of support rights in consumer transactions. Unless this bill is referred to an exempt committee, no further action will be taken on it.

This bill was introduced by the Senate Committee on Elections and Local Government, and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is identical to SB 97, which became law in 1999, and also to HB 2360, providing authority for corporations to be represented in small claims courts by an officer or by anyone designated by corporate resolution. Unless this bill is referred to an exempt committee, no further action will be taken on it.

This bill was introduced by the Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs, and referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. It provides for expedited eviction procedures. This bill is exempt from all deadlines.

This bill was introduced by the Senate Judiciary Committee and referred back to that committee. It provides a procedure to move hearings and trials, without changing venue, from a courthouse that does not conform to section 11 of the Americans with disabilities act to a courthouse that does conform. It has been re-referred to the Senate Federal And State Affairs Committee, which means that it is exempt from all deadlines. The committee amended the bill to make the decision to move the hearing or trial permissive on the judge, rather than mandatory. It passed the Senate in 1999, and was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. 

This bill relates to identity theft, and was introduced by the interim Judiciary Committee, and assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee. The bill would increase the penalty for identity theft from a class A person misdemeanor to a severity level 7, person felony. It would also provide for an aggravating factor to be that the degree of economic harm or loss attributed to the current crime of conviction was significantly greater than typical for such an offense. The bill had a hearing on January 18. Unless this bill is referred to an exempt committee, no further action will be taken on it.

This bill relates to the subpoena of business records, and would change the notice requirement from ten days prior to the issuance of the subpoena to ten days prior to service of the subpoena. It was introduced by the Judiciary Committee and referred back to that Committee, and a hearing was held on January 20. Unless this bill is referred to an exempt committee, no further action will be taken on it.

This bill would provide for pre-judgment interest, which would be either the contract rate or if none were specified in the contract, the pre-judgment rate would be ten percent. This would apply to any judgment entered after June 30, 2000. It was introduced by the Judiciary Committee at the Request of the Kansas Judicial Council and referred back to that Committee; a hearing was conducted on January 26. Unless this bill is referred to an exempt committee, no further action will be taken on it.

This would amend the Uniform Enforcement Of Foreign Judgments Act by striking the amendment that was made in 1999 to provide that if the foreign judgment is enforceable in the foreign jurisdiction where it was originally rendered, the Kansas Statutes of Limitation would not be a defense to the judgment or the filing of the foreign judgment in Kansas. This was introduced by the Judiciary Committee at the request of the Kansas Judicial Council, and a hearing was held on January 20. The committee passed the bill, and when the bill was debated on the Senate floor, it was amended by adding, "except that no judgment, decree or order arising out of any traffic code or any code that is criminal, quasi-criminal, or purely regulatory in nature shall be enforced under the provisions of this act." The bill passed the Senate, and has been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee.

This is another bill relating to subpoena of business records; this bill would eliminate the notice requirement. It was introduced by the Judiciary Committee and referred back to that Committee. A hearing was conducted before a sub-committee on February 14. The committee amended the bill to provide that the cost of copying the records should include staff time required to make the information available. The committee further amended the bill by putting back in the present statutory language requiring 10 days notice. The bill passed the Senate as amended, and has been introduced in the House.

This bill concerns docket fees, which is always a subject matter which our groups want to watch carefully. It was introduced by the Judiciary Committee and referred back to that Committee. As written, it does not affect us, because it simply increases the docket fee in traffic, cigarette or tobacco infraction cases. A hearing was held before a sub-committee on February 14. The committee recommended the bill favorable for passage; it has passed the Senate, and has been introduced into the House.

This bill was introduced by the Senate Judiciary Committee and referred back to that Committee. It deals with service of process upon corporations, limited liability companies and limited partnerships, and provides that if the organization fails to appoint or maintain a resident agent, the Secretary of State shall be irrevocably authorized as the agent and representative, and service of process can be made upon the Secretary of State. A hearing was held before a sub-committee on February 14. The committee amended the bill by making an amendment to K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 17-7667 as well as to K.S.A. 60-304 as provided in the original bill. This broadens the act to include limited liability companies. The bill was further amended by the Senate Committee Of The Whole by increasing the fee to be paid to the Secretary of State from $30.00 to $40.00. The bill passed the Senate with both amendments, and it has been introduced into the House. 

This is the bill that was introduced by the Senate Judiciary Committee at our request and amends K.S.A 61-2309 relating to judgment in eviction actions. It was referred back to the Senate Judiciary Committee. I appeared in support of the bill on February 7. The committee passed the bill and placed it on the consent calendar. It has now passed the Senate, and has been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee.

This bill creates the Judicial Branch Non-Judicial Salary Initiative Fund. It increase Chapter 60 docket fees from $66.50 to $100.00, and increases the Chapter 61 docket fees. Presently the Chapter 61 docket fees are $19.50 if the amount in controversy does not exceed $500.00, $39.50 if the amount in controversy is between $500.00 and $5,000.00, and $64.50 if the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000.00. Under the bill, the docket fee would be $45.00 if the amount involved does not exceed $5,000.00 and would be $75.00 if the amount exceeds $5,000.00. At the request of the Office of Judicial Administration, it was introduced by the Senate Ways And Means Committee, and referred back to that Committee, which means it is not subject to any deadlines. A hearing was conducted on February 17. I presented testimony expressing our objections to the bill, especially expressing the opposition of raising the docket fees for cases involving less than $500.00 from $19.50 to $45.00. Also on February 17, Ron Smith and I attended a meeting in the Office of Judicial Administration wherein the OJA stated that they are committed to financing the non-judicial salary initiative fund by raising docket fees. The only thing they would be willing to talk to us about would be some other combination of increased docket fees that would raise the same amount of money as they project this bill will do. They scoff at our arguments that there will be fewer cases filed, and moreover, they seem to think it would be a good idea if fewer cases were filed, thus relieving the workload of the clerks. Ron Smith and I met with Senator Ranson, the Chair of the subcommittee to which this bill has been assigned. One idea that Senator Ranson said that she thought the committee should consider was the possibility of putting a sunset provision into the docket fee increase. Walt Scott and I met with Judge Marla Luckert, the Chief Judge of the Shawnee County District Court, and who is the president-elect of the Kansas Bar Association, and she said that philosophically she is opposed to the concept of financing salary increases through increased docket fees. She feels that as a matter of social policy, those should be paid from the general fund. On the other hand, she is quite convinced that this year there is no money available from the general fund, and she is committed to obtaining funds to help alleviate the crisis situation regarding non-judicial salaries for court employees. She stated that she would certainly endorse the concept of a sunset provision.

This was introduced by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and referred back to that committee. It relates to collection of debts owed to Courts such as restitution. It repeals K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 75-719, and instead of having the Attorney General be the person who enters into contracts for collection of those debts, it would authorize the Chief Judge of each Judicial District to enter into such contracts. A hearing was held before a sub-committee on February 14. The committee amended the bill to permit any Chief Judge to set up a debt collection program in addition to any program run by the Attorney General. As introduced, the bill would have provided for the District Court debt collection to be exclusive and complete alternative to the existing Attorney General program. The bill passed the Senate as amended, and will be introduced in the House. 

This was introduced by the Senate Judiciary Committee at the request of the Kansas Bar Association, and was referred back to that committee. It relates to bad checks. It would permit the sending of the notice to the writer of the check by first class mail. It would provide that the notice shall state the exact amount and due date as well as an estimate of the amount that may be incurred if the amount demanded is not paid by the specified date. It would require the Plaintiff to include in the petition a statement alleging the amount that the Defendant may tender as satisfaction of the claim. If that amount is tendered, the case shall be dismissed by the Plaintiff. At that point, the amount tendered as satisfaction shall not include triple damages. This bill was re-referred to the Senate Ways And Means Committee, which exempts it from all deadlines, and then referred back to the Senate Judiciary Committee. 

This bill was introduced by Senator Salisbury, and assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee. It relates to garnishment, and provides that if the garnishment proceeding is for the purpose of enforcing an order of support of any person, the Court may award the Plaintiff an amount for the Plaintiff’s expenses, including attorney fees, if such expenses and attorney fees could have been awarded in the proceeding determining the order for support. Unless this bill is referred to an exempt committee, no further action will be taken on it.

This bill was introduced by Senator Salisbury, and assigned to the Senate Ways And Means Committee, which means that it will be exempt from all deadlines. It amends all the statutes that provide for the number of district judges in each judicial district, by striking the provision that states how many judges there shall be in that district. It adds a new section which provides that the supreme court shall allocate all judicial resources as the Court determines necessary and appropriate. The supreme court shall assign the number of district judge positions and district magistrate judges as currently provided by law to each judicial district as the court determines necessary. The supreme court shall determine where each district judge’s and district magistrate judge’s office is to be located and shall assign the county in which such judge shall serve and hear cases. 

This bill was introduced by the Senate Ways and Means Committee, which means it is exempt from all deadlines, and has been assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is similar to HB 2372, in that it would raise the mandatory retirement age for all judges from 70 to 75.

This was introduced by the Special Committee on Information Management, and assigned to the Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee. It urges Congress to pass the Freedom And Privacy Restoration Act of 1998. This Resolution is exempt from all deadlines.

This was introduced by the Special Committee on Information Management and assigned to the House Governmental Organizations and Elections Committee. It would create a new statute which would prohibit any state agency from accepting for any identification-related purpose any identification number which another state agency already accepts for an identification-related purpose. Unless this bill is referred to an exempt committee, no further action will be taken on it.

This was introduced by the Special Committee on Information Management, and assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. It relates to criminal statutes, amending the eavesdropping statute, repealing the present breach of privacy statute, and combines the two into one crime known as invasion of privacy. Unless this bill is referred to an exempt committee, no further action will be taken on it.

This bill was introduced by the House Judiciary Committee and referred back to that Committee. It amends the statute relating to collection of debts owed to courts and restitution ordered by courts, and the authority of the Attorney General to contract for collection services. It provides that the cost of collection be paid by the defendant as an additional court cost, and that the cost of collection shall be deemed an administrative fee make necessary by the defendant’s failure to pay the court debt and restitution. The contents of the bill were added to House substitute for SB 306, which became law in 1999. Unless this bill is referred to an exempt committee, no further action will be taken on it.

This bill was introduced by the House Committee on Financial Institutions, and referred back to that Committee. It would provide any trustee who has the duty or power to pay the debts of a person who has died shall give notice to creditors, in much the same manner as notice to creditors is required in probate proceedings. It passed the House in 1999, and was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

This is the bill which was introduced by the House Judiciary Committee at our request, to eliminate the prohibition against wage garnishment on assigned accounts. It was assigned to the House Business, Commerce And Labor Committee. It was passed by the Committee, and initially placed on the House consent calendar. However, it was removed from the consent calendar, and was on the regular calendar for debate. Unfortunately, during debate Rep. Bob Grant made a motion, which prevailed, to re-refer it to the House Judiciary Committee. I testified in support of the bill at the hearing on February 8. A technical amendment was made to the bill by the House Judiciary Committee, who then voted 7 to 6 to report the bill favorably as amended. When the bill was debated on the floor of the House, a motion was made to amend the bill, but the proposed amendment, whatever it was, was ruled out of order as not being germane to the subject of the bill. A motion was then made to re-refer the bill to the Judiciary Committee, but that motion failed. Rep. Spangler then moved to strike the Enacting Clause, which would have killed the bill. That motion was defeated of a recorded vote of 59 to 62. However, on the motion to report the bill favorable for passage, that motion also failed on an unrecorded vote of 49 to 64. Unless the bill is referred to an exempt committee, no further action will be taken on it.

This bill was introduced by the Committee on Governmental Organization and Elections, and referred back to that Committee. It provides that no state agency may refuse payment of fees paid by personal check. It does give a state agency authority to impose additional fees and recover any cost incurred by reason of payments made by personal checks with insufficient funds. The committee amended the bill by introducing a substitute bill. The substitute bill provides that state agencies must accept payment in the form of a personal, certified or cashiers check or money order, and that after June 30, 2001, a state agency shall also accept payment in the form of a credit card. The bill passed the House, and has been assigned to the Senate Ways and Means Committee, which means that it is not subject to any deadlines.

This was introduced by the House Judiciary Committee, and referred back to that Committee. It provides that a District Magistrate Judge must be a resident of the County for which elected or appointed to serve at the time of taking the oath of office and shall maintain residency in the County while holding office. It is identical to HB 2352, which became law in 1999, and to SB 148. Unless the bill is referred to an exempt committee, no action will be taken on it.

This was introduced by Rep. Swenson and referred to the House Judiciary Committee. It amends K.S.A. 20-3133 relating to clerks of the district court to provide that the clerk or deputy may assist the public in locating legal forms, and provides that such assistance shall not constitute the practice of law. Unless the bill is referred to an exempt committee, no action will be taken on it.

This was introduced by Rep. Lightner and 13 other Representatives relating to making Roth IRAs exempt from claims of creditors, and was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. It is identical to SB 143, which became law in 1999. Unless the bill is referred to an exempt committee, no action will be taken on it.

This was introduced by the House Committee on Utilities, and referred back to that Committee. It amends the statute concerning consumer protection and relates to telecommunications services. It would prohibit any supplemental telecommunications services being added to a consumer’s account without having the express authorization of the consumer. Unless the bill is referred to an exempt committee, no action will be taken on it.

This was introduced by Rep. Freeborn, by request, and assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. It would require employers to inform any newly hired employee that an employer is only required to pay an employee for 90 days of back pay, of not more than $4,000.00 for such back wages, if the employer files for bankruptcy. It would further provide that any person who files bankruptcy and utilizes the exemptions pursuant to article 23 of Chapter 60 shall be required to hire a CPA to annually audit that person’s finances for seven years following the filing of the bankruptcy. It also amends K.S.A. 60-2304 to reduce the value of a means of conveyance that is exempt from $20,000.00 to $6,000.00. The first section of this bill was added as a floor amendment to House Substitute for SB 306, but it was deleted by the Conference Committee. Unless the bill is referred to an exempt committee, no action will be taken on it.

This bill was introduced by Rep. Minor and referred to the House Judiciary Committee. It amends the statutes concerning small claims procedure to raise the maximum amount that can be sought in a small claims procedure from $1,800.00 to $2,500.00; and increases the number of small claims that may be filed by any person in any calendar year from 10 to 20. Unless the bill is referred to an exempt committee, no action will be taken on it.

This bill was introduced by Rep. Minor and referred to the House Judiciary Committee. It is identical to SB 97, which provides that a corporation may be represented in small claims court by an officer of the corporation or by an agent designated by corporate resolution; SB 97 became law in 1999. Unless the bill is referred to an exempt committee, no action will be taken on it.

This was introduced by Rep. Adkins and referred to the House Judiciary Committee. It provides that neither the home telephone number nor the home address of a candidate for election or retention as judge shall be disclosed by any election officer. Unless the bill is referred to an exempt committee, no action will be taken on it.

This was introduced by and referred back to the House Judiciary Committee. It would raise the mandatory retirement age for judges from 70 to 75. The committee amended the bill to only raise the mandatory retirement age from 70 to 75 for judges of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals. The bill passed the House as amended, and will be sent to the Senate.

This was introduced by and referred back to the House Judiciary Committee. It provides that upon the approval and filing of a supercedes bond, any judgment lien shall be discharged and released. Unless the bill is referred to an exempt committee, no action will be taken on it.

This was introduced by and referred back to the House Judiciary Committee. It would eliminate the review of the budget of the judicial branch by the state budget director. The chief justice would continue to submit the judicial budget to the budget director, but the chief’s request would be sent to the legislature in the annual budget document without change by the director. The committee made technical amendment. When the bill was debated, it was referred back to the Judiciary Committee in 1999. In 2000, the committee amended the bill to reflect the change in years, and recommended it favorably for passage. When the bill was debated, the motion to report the bill favorably passed. Unless it is referred to an exempt committee, no further action will be taken on it.

This bill was introduced by the House Judiciary Committee and referred back to that committee. It relates to the to the election of District Court Judges and District Magistrate Judges. It would provide that all District Judges and District Magistrate Judges would be elected rather than appointed, and further provides that all such judges would be elected on a non-partisan basis. A hearing was conducted on January 20. Unless the bill is referred to an exempt committee, no action will be taken on it.

This bill was introduced by the House Committee On Appropriations, which is an exempt committee, making the bill exempt from all deadlines, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee. It amends K.S.A. 60-260 relating to civil procedure, specifically Motions For Relief. It would provide that motions to set aside an order of forfeiture and allocation of forfeited property pursuant to K.S.A. 60-4117, shall be made not more than one year after such order was entered.

This bill would expand the number of Judges on the Court Of Appeals from ten to fourteen. It was introduced by the interim Judiciary Committee, and assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. A hearing was conducted on January 19. The committee passed the bill, and it is now on the House Calendar. When the bill was debated on the floor, the motion to report the bill favorably for passage failed. Unless the bill is referred to an exempt committee, no further action will be taken on it.

This amends certain provisions of the probate code, by increasing the allowance for a surviving spouse from $25,000.00 to $35,000.00. It was introduced by the Judiciary Committee and referred back to that Committee. A hearing on it was conducted on January 27. The committee amended the bill to make it easier to file an affidavit for the transfer of assets where the total assets of the estate of the person dying that are subject to probate do not exceed $20,000.00. The House passed the bill as amended, and it has been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

This was introduce by the special Committee on Judiciary and referred to the House Judiciary Committee. It makes many amendments to the Kansas Fair Credit Reporting Act including many provisions relating to "adverse" action. A hearing on the bill was conducted on February 1. The committee amended the bill, and the House passed the bill as amended. It will now be sent to the Senate. . 

This was introduced by the Judiciary Committee, and referred to the House Insurance Committee. It amends K.S.A. 40-218 and relates to service of process and garnishment proceedings against insurance companies. A hearing was conducted on February 15. Unless the bill is referred to an exempt committee, no action will be taken on it.

This was introduced by the House Judiciary Committee at the request of the Kansas Judicial Council, and was referred back to that Committee. It is the bill which revises Chapter 61 procedure. A hearing was held February 3. Testimony in support of the bill was given by the Executive Director of the Kansas Judicial Council, by me, and by Judge Bullock. Testimony in opposition was presented by the Kansas Bankers Association, the Heartland Community Bankers Association, and the Kansas Land Title Association. A further hearing was held on February 10, to permit Bruce Ward to present his walk-through of the bill. Bruce also presented written testimony listing suggested amendments to the bill. The bill was re-referred to the House Appropriations Committee, which exempts it from all deadlines, and then referred back to the House Judiciary Committee. 

This bill was introduced by the House Judiciary Committee and referred back to that committee. It relates to service of process. A hearing was conducted on February 14. Unless the bill is referred to an exempt committee, no action will be taken on it.

This bill was introduced by the House Committee On Financial Institutions, and referred back to that committee. It relates to consumer protection, and provides that "no supplier shall obtain or submit for payment a check, draft or other form of negotiable paper drawn on a person’s checking, savings or bancard account without the consumer’s expressed written authorization". A hearing was conducted on February 16. A further limited hearing was conducted on February 21. The committee voted to amend the bill, but then on the motion to report the bill favorably as amended, the motion failed on a vote of 8 to 8, with the Chair of the committee choosing not to vote. Unless the bill is referred to an exempt committee, no further action will be taken on it.

This bill was introduced by the House Committee On Appropriations, and referred back to that committee, which means that it is not subject to any deadlines. It appears to be a duplicate of SB 506. It creates the Judicial Branch non-judicial salary initiative fund, and raises docket fees. The docket fees for Chapter 60 would increase from $66.50 to $100.00. The Chapter 61 docket fees, which presently are $19.50 if the amount in controversy does not exceed $500.00, $39.50 if the amount in controversy is between $500.00 and $5,000.00, and $64.50 if the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000.00, would also be increased. Under the bill, the docket fee would be $45.00 if the amount involved does not exceed $5,000.00 and would be $75.00 if the amount exceeds $5,000.00. 

I attended the hearing on February 15, expressing our strong opposition, especially to the portion of the bill that raises the docket fee from $19.50 to $45.00 for Chapter 61 cases where the amount in controversy does not exceed $500.00. Ron Smith and I also attended a meeting in the Office of Judicial Administration on February 17. The OJA indicated that they are committed to raising the necessary money for the Non-Judicial Salary Initiative Fund through the process of raising docket fees. They would only be willing to negotiate with us if we came up with a proposal raising docket fees in some other manner in order to produce the necessary amount of money. They scoff at our argument that the 230% increase in docket fees for cases under $500.00 would result in fewer cases being filed. Furthermore, they seem to think it would be a good idea if in fact there were fewer cases filed, so as to reduce the workload on the clerks. Ron Smith and I met with Sen. Ranson, the Chair of the sub-committee to which the companion Senate bill, SB 506 has been referred. Among the ideas that she suggested might be considered is placing a sunset provision on the increased docket fees. Walt Scott and I met with Judge Marla Luckert, who is the Chief Judge of the Shawnee County District Court, a member of the governing board of the District Judges Association, and the president-elect of the Kansas Bar Association. We shared our concerns with her. She stated that she believes that it is poor public policy to fund salary increases by means of increased docket fees, but on the other hand, she feels that there is a crisis situation with regard to the non-judicial salaries, and she feels that there will not be any funds made available from the general fund this year. She stated that she would be supportive of a sunset provision for the docket fee increase. 

This was introduced by the House Business, Commerce And Labor Committee and referred back to that committee. It would repeal the cap on damages for pain and suffering, and repeals K.S.A. 60-19a01 and 60-19a02. Unless this bill is referred to an exempt committee, no action will be taken on it. 

This was introduced by 8 Representatives, and provides that a lawyer shall not permit a person who recommends, employs or pays the lawyer to render legal services for another to direct or regulate the lawyer’s professional judgment in rendering such services. It was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Unless this bill is referred to an exempt committee, no action will be taken on it. 

This bill was introduced by the House Judiciary Committee at the request of the Kansas Bar Association. It relates to service of process, and would permit service by priority mail, commercial courier service, overnight delivery service, or "other reliable personal delivery service". A hearing was conducted on February 14. The committee added some clarifying amendments; the House passed the bill as amended, and it will be sent to the Senate.

This was introduced by the House Judiciary Committee and referred back to that committee. It relates to the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, and provides that the Court of Appeals may exercise discretion in considering whether or not it will accept certain appeals. One of the categories where discretionary appeals would apply is any action where damages are equal to or less than $10,000.00. This bill was introduced at the request of the Kansas Judicial Council. A hearing was conducted on February 16. Unless this bill is referred to an exempt committee, no action will be taken on it. 

This was introduced by the Select Committee On Information Management, and assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. It would change the statute dealing with harassment by telephone to the crime of use of communication facilities for harassment. It would cover not only telephones, but also faxes, and E-mail. Unless this bill is referred to an exempt committee, no action will be taken on it. 

This was introduced by 18 Representatives, and assigned to the House Insurance Committee. It would enact what is called the Health Information Privacy Act, and relates to the privacy of medical records. A hearing was conducted on February 17. Unless this bill is referred to an exempt committee, no action will be taken on it. 

This bill was introduced by Rep. Rehorn and Flora, and assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. It provides for an expedited eviction procedure, and provides that either a landlord or the county or district attorney of the county in which a leased premises is located shall have standing to bring an action pursuant to the Residential Landlord And Tenant Act. Unless this bill is referred to an exempt committee, no action will be taken on it. 

This bill was introduced by the members of the Shawnee County delegation, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee. It would authorize the supreme court to adopt rules to govern the electronic filing of court matters, and provides that each judicial district may accept for filing lawsuits which are either filed in the traditional manner or filed electronically and as language identical to New Section 21 of HB 2697 relating to service of process. Unless this bill is referred to an exempt committee, no action will be taken on it. 

This was introduced by the members of the Shawnee County delegation, and provides for continuing garnishment. It was referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Unless this bill is referred to an exempt committee, no action will be taken on it. 

This was introduced by the Select Committee on Information Management, and referred to the House Judiciary Committee. It provides for a civil cause of action for the theft of computer information, and further provides that the person or business alleging injury or loss may bring an action to enjoin such actions. It also provides that the Attorney General may bring the cause of action to enjoin the activity. Unless this bill is referred to an exempt committee, no action will be taken on it. 

This was introduced by the Special Committee on Information Management, and assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. It urges Congress to pass the Medical Privacy Act of 1998.