Court jurisdiction.
In one sentence
Not clearly identified in the stored source.
No additional limitations are listed.
Official record
Bill No.: <billno> Drafter: <drafterinit> Bill No.: SF0015 Drafter: JHR LSO No.: 11LSO-0206 Effective Date: 7/1/2011 Enrolled Act No.: SEA0087 Chapter No.: 196 Prime Sponsor: Joint Judiciary Interim Committee Catch Title: Court jurisdiction. Subject: Jurisdiction of circuit and small claims court. Summary/Major Elements: The act increases the jurisdiction amount in small claims court from $5,000 to $6,000. The act increases the exclusive jurisdiction amount in circuit courts from $7,000 to $50,000.
Public statements
Last checked Aug 7, 9:38 PM
Why they voted this way
The speaker supports the bill because it represents a compromise reached with the House and Supreme Court to maintain circuit court jurisdiction at $50,000 while raising small claims court limits from $5,000 to $6,000 to keep up with inflation.
R · S30
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker believes the House amendments to court jurisdiction limits are reasonable and supports agreeing with them.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker argues that changing the bill would disrupt a delicate compromise involving court clerks and urges maintaining the Senate position.
H44
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill and amendment as a compromise, arguing it respects the judicial branch's assessment of their problems while addressing concerns about court workload.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill but urges caution because she believes raising limits too high shifts financial burdens between state and county paid clerks, creating a potential crisis.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because he believes the balance between courts should not be determined solely by clerks' views on revenue and workload, but rather through further dialogue.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker states he prefers the $10,000 limit for civil cases because it seems like a more appropriate level based on testimony comparing claims to the value of a used car.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker explains that the current small claims process relies on scanty information which makes justice a matter of chance for higher amounts, so he urges support for lowering the limit to $6,000.
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment as an appropriate compromise because he believes the goal is simply to get people in front of a judge rather than fixing a broken system.
If a lawmaker is not listed, we couldn't find a published reason.
Wyoming roll calls
7 roll calls
Official activity
Changes
4 stored
Adopted 2nd reading by GINGERY
Withdrawn 2nd reading by BROWN
Adopted 3rd reading by GINGERY
Adopted Standing Committee by PERKINS