MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY Sixty-eighth Session February 1, 1995 The Committee on Judiciary was called to order at 8:40 a.m., on Wednesday, February 1, 1995, Chairman Anderson presiding in Room 332 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Bernie Anderson, Chairman Mr. David E. Humke, Chairman Ms. Barbara E. Buckley, Vice Chairman Mr. Brian Sandoval, Vice Chairman Mr. Thomas Batten Mr. John C. Carpenter Mr. David Goldwater Mr. Mark Manendo Mrs. Jan Monaghan Ms. Genie Ohrenschall Mr. Richard Perkins Mr. Michael A. (Mike) Schneider Ms. Dianne Steel Ms. Jeannine Stroth GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Mr. Douglas Bache STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Dennis Neilander, Research Analyst Joi Davis, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Ms. Frankie Sue Del Papa, Nevada Attorney General Mr. Thomas J. Ray, Solicitor General, Nevada Attorney General Ms. Brooke A. Nielsen, Assistant Nevada Attorney General Mr. Bill Bradley, Attorney at Law Mr. Robert Perry, Attorney at Law Ms. Victoria Riley, Nevada Trial Lawyers Association Mr. Robert L. Crowell, Attorney at Law Chairman Anderson opened the meeting with several introductions of various individuals in the audience to the committee stating these individuals may be of assistance to the committee for future questions and answers. He additionally asked the audience to be sure to sign the attendance roster if they would like to speak for or against a bill. Chairman Anderson then moved the meeting to the agenda material. ASSEMBLY BILL 74 - Revises provisions governing use of units in common-interest community. Mr. Douglas Bache, Assemblyman, District 11, began his testimony stating he submitted A.B. 74 at the request of former member, Jim Banner. Mr. Banner recently sold his home in District 11 and moved to Summerlin. Mr. Banner was interested in checking the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CCR's) and the association restrictions relating to a home workshop he wanted to put in his garage there. He was told that he could have a workshop. However, a year later someone in the neighborhood is trying to amend the association rules to prevent him from having a workshop in his garage. The current board has not enacted that amendment but the gentleman pushing for the amendment is not giving up. The pertinent language of the statute is on page two of the bill. Mr. Bache read the italicized text of A.B. 74. This language means that the association would not be able to retroactively apply certain standards for property usage. Mr. Banner will testify on this bill in Las Vegas, however, he is currently recovering from an angina attack. Mrs. Monaghan inquired if the proposed language would provide any protection of the new owner. Mr. Bache believed that the particular restrictions for use of the property in a certain way would be noticed to the prospective buyer in advance. This bill protects the individual who has already been allowed to use their property in a certain way then are restricted from that use without their consent. He further stated he would have no problem with an amendment if more clarification was necessary. Ms. Buckley asked if Mr. Banner was using the workshop for commercial purposes or for residential purposes. Mr. Bache believed it was strictly for residential use only. Mr. Schneider questioned the wording "unanimous consent". This appeared to affect all homeowners and wondered if all 10,000 homeowners in Summerlin would be necessary. Mr. Bache stated that not all homeowners would be affected. Mr. Schneider continued in that it could affect every homeowner and Mr. Bache stated potentially this was so. Mr. Schneider added that A.B. 74 was similar to a bill he has coming up and perhaps he could work with Mr. Bache. Chairman Anderson stated he hoped both bills could be scheduled to be heard in Las Vegas at the same time. Mr. Humke wondered how broad the impact of this bill was and if Mr. Bache expected many people to testify in Las Vegas. Mr. Banner and a couple other individuals would testify in Las Vegas. Mr. Humke expressed his desire to see a broader impact than one homeowner in one association. Mr. Schneider interjected that including his bill on the subject they would be able to fill Cashman Field. Mr. Anderson stated A.B. 74 would be reagendized for Wednesday, February 15, 1995, in Las Vegas. ASSEMBLY BILL 2 - Reduces period during which cause of action to recover damages for personal injury or wrongful death may be commenced. Mr. Anderson introduced the committee research analyst, Dennis Neilander to make a few comments. Mr. Neilander pointed out the research brief he prepared entitled Tort Reform attached hereto as (Exhibit C). He explained that the document was designed to give the committee background information on tort reform and various issues involved. The brief contains arguments for and against tort reform and is designed to be unbiased in nature. Attorney General, Frankie Sue Del Papa, began her testimony in support of A.B. 2 and read verbatim from her prepared statement attached hereto as (Exhibit D). Ms. Del Papa additionally referred to documents provided to each committee member (Exhibit E) which contain several articles and additional information on the subject of tort reform with some area of specificity as it relates to statute of limitations in personal injury and wrongful death actions. Ms. Del Papa also read into the record a letter she received from Attorney William Cashill regarding his thoughts on A.B. 2 (Exhibit F) and his strong opposition to the bill. Ms. Del Papa disagreed with this attorney's viewpoint. She respectfully requested the committee recommend passage of A.B. 2. Mr. Humke asked Ms. Del Papa if she characterized A.B. 2 as a tort reform issue or a Crime and Punishment Reform issue since it appeared the AG had a chief concern involving inmate lawsuits. Ms. Del Papa stated A.B. 2 was definitely a tort reform issue. Mr. Humke asked how much involvement the AG office had with "garden variety" tort claims. Ms. Del Papa directed this question to Mr. Tom Ray from her office and also referred the committee to Mr. John Hansen who was present in the audience explaining that after the last legislative session the tort reform responsibilities were transferred from budget to the AG. She further stated that at least 500 cases filed against the state are tort claims. Mr. Tom Ray, Solicitor General for the Nevada Attorney General's office testified that A.B. 2 addresses tort reform not crime and punishment. He stated that the Attorney General's office handles all types of tort claims--not strictly the prison claims. He views A.B. 2 as a very modest tort reform measure and it should not be controversial. A.B. 2 does not limit attorney's fees, capping damages, limiting or eliminating punitive damages, which are more radical measures and should be controversial. He does not see A.B. 2 as having a negative side. Mr. Ray feels if you are forced to bring a lawsuit one year sooner, it will be resolved one year sooner which is a benefit to everyone. He stated that studies have shown it is not the statute of limitations that increases lawsuits but rather plaintiffs' lawyers bringing lawsuits. The statute of limitations will force you to act and encourage resolution and settlement, not litigation. Mr. Ray further stated statistics show attorney involvement in the case takes longer to settle and the net to the plaintiff is approximately the same. He informed the committee that 14 states currently have one year statute of limitations. Chairman Anderson acknowledged the committee members requesting to comment. Mr. Humke referred to previous discussions with the AG staff in that there were a couple of categories they are mostly concerned with: 1) inmate claims and 2) tort claims within the state agencies. However, A.B. 2 affects all those tort claims filed in the state. He requested the AG to direct him to the rate of tort cases they defend versus all tort claims filed in the state . Ms. Del Papa stated she did not have that figure but pointed out that the AG is the largest law office in the State of Nevada comprising of 106 attorneys, that the advantages of A.B. 2 would apply across the board. Ms. Del Papa stated they do not keep such statistics but perhaps some other entity would have such figures for the committee. Mr. Carpenter inquired of the AG if they had any first hand knowledge of how the system was working in California since they have had the one year statute of limitations in place for over 100 years. Does it seem to speed things up or slow it down? Ms. Del Papa encouraged everyone to review the articles contained in the handout (Exhibit E) and the committee should not be comparing Nevada to California since there are 14 states in the country that have the one year statute of limitations, citing the State of Arizona as a recent passing. Ms. Del Papa stressed looking at the overall picture of litigation in the country and referred the committee to the Forbes article contained in (Exhibit E). Ms. Del Papa feels that people are concerned that we are a litigious society, it costs too much, and takes too long. She stated that the State of California had 11.3% of the nation (population) and their problem lies with the criminal and civil justice systems. In fact, she heard that by the year 2000 it will take ten years to get a civil case through the State of California. Something needs to be done with reference to the civil justice system in this country and this state or we will be heading for disaster. Ms. Del Papa stated the AG is concerned with the number of inmate cases but it was not her main concern. She further acknowledged there will be competing values the committee will have to consider and A.B. 2 may not be the total solution to the entire problem. Mr. Carpenter agreed the system needs to change but questioned if passing A.B. 2 would improve the system. He asked if there was any material provided by the AG directing him to whether this would improve the system or not, specifically those states already under the one year statute of limitation laws. Ms. Del Papa informed the committee it was the opinion of the AG's office that A.B. 2 would improve the system. Ms. Del Papa set forth significant reasons why it would benefit. Specifically, in the current two year statute, you run into the problem of unavailability of witnesses, witnesses' memories fade, witnesses change their jobs. Ms. Brooke Nielsen testified regarding Mr. Carpenter's question regarding the connection of time on statute of limitations and overall effect on tort claims. However, the handout provided shows statistics regarding the handling of automobile claims adjusted by insurance companies without the involvement of attorneys are resolved in the first six months and virtually all of them are resolved within one year. Ms. Nielsen stated that statistics show that when attorneys are involved it takes longer. However, in the absence of a hard deadline, there is no encouragement to settle until that deadline, whether it is one year, two years, three years. "We believe the one year statute will get people moving faster, including attorneys." Mr. Ray stated two problems in talking about tort reform: 1) cost and amount associated with litigation; and 2) time of incident to time of resolution. Mr. Ray stated their position mainly is tied to the "time" involvement. There are already mandatory arbitration rules in place for claims under $25,000 and there are expedited discovery rules designed to streamline the process. Ms. Steel asked how much of our tax budget is dedicated to paying off the undefendable stale claims. Ms. Del Papa stated this would be difficult to answer because it would depend on which year and which claims are filed. Ms. Del Papa further relayed that she sits on the board of examiners committee for the past eight years consisting of governor, the attorney general, and the secretary of state and all the claims filed against the state must go through that board. It would depend on the year and it varies from year to year. Ms. Steel asked for a high/low figure and Mr. Ray provided that the state pays approximately $2,000,000 per year in tort claims. Ms. Steel wondered if there was any differentiation of the defendant as pertains to A.B. 2. Ms. Nielsen stated they have looked at other statute of limitations of other states and did see several states that had a one year statute of limitations for actions brought against the state, its officers, and employees so that distinction has been made elsewhere. Ms. Del Papa added that the problem is broader than just the inmate litigation, however, the inmate litigation is a major problem. Ms. Nielsen included that having a separate statute of limitation for inmate cases has been tested unsuccessfully. Ms. Steel clarified that her question was posed toward "defendants" not strictly inmates. Chairman Anderson made reference to a Utah case dealing with civil rights. The case is entitled Arnold v. Duchesne County, Utah, CA 10, No. 93-4046 (May 27, 1994) taken from The United States Law Week, 62 LW 2774. A copy of the article is attached hereto as (Exhibit G). Mr. Sandoval disclosed that he is a licensed attorney in the State of Nevada and the State of California and has handled plaintiffs' matters as well as insurance defense work. Mr. Sandoval went on to state he felt this may in fact increase litigation and the involvement of attorneys. He referred the committee to Section 3, page 72, and tab 4, page 51-52, of the handout (Exhibit E). Directing his question to Ms. Del Papa, he reviewed the figures and statistics in comparison to the State of Nevada and the State of California with the figures in California being substantially larger. Understanding a comparison cannot be made apples for apples due to the size of the State of California versus the size of the State of Nevada, the figures still show higher levels of attorney involvement and litigation in California where the statute of limitation is one year rather than Nevada's low figures under the two year statute. Ms. Del Papa cautioned that to look at this from a statistical standpoint, you would have to look at all 14 states having one year statute of limitations. Further, it is difficult to compare anything to California since they are so large. She added that Arizona has recently, within the last two years, implemented the one year statute and perhaps a comparison with that state would be better in line. She reiterated the position of the AG is that A.B. 2 would not increase litigation. Ms. Buckley disclosed that she was a licensed attorney in the State of Nevada and had no pecuniary interest in hearing these issues. Ms. Buckley inquired if there was any percentage of the 800 cases that are brought against the state that were brought after the one year period. Ms. Del Papa stated they had no such statistics. Ms. Buckley asked what percentage of the prison litigation compares to the entire amount of tort cases filed each year. Ms. Del Papa acknowledged the inmate litigation was a grave concern but this was a broader issue. She further stated that in 1991, 40% of the civil case load of the United States District Court of the State of Nevada was inmate cases. Today, in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 33% of all their cases are inmate cases. That problem is very serious and the AG is moving forward to tackle that issue. Mr. Ray stated he would be able to supply Ms. Buckley with the statistics she requested regarding how many of the 800 claims were filed after the one year time frame. He also indicated there are currently about 500 general tort claims filed each year and approximately 400 inmate claims filed each year. Mr. Ray clarified that the approximate 900 figure regards only claims against the state. Ms. Buckley asked if the AG has worked with any other persons, such as insurance companies, lawyers for victims, or others to draft possible solutions to the tort system. Ms. Del Papa stated within the AG office they have internal committees established to improve the efficiency of their office but they have not worked with any insurance companies on tort reform. Ms. Buckley was not sure if a one year statute of limitation law was that beneficial and would lead to the end results needed for all other tort claims besides those in the Attorney General's office. Mr. Batten posed a hypothetical situation of an inmate being injured but the signs of the injury were not apparent until a year later, would that individual be precluded from bringing suit. Mr. Ray stated this question falls under the doctrine of "tolling" the statute of limitations. Further, the courts support the victim in this situation and would rule the statute of limitation is tolled until "the plaintiff knew or should have known" hence, there would be no bar from filing suit. Ms. Stroth inquired about wrongful death relating that oftentimes when a death has occurred and the matter is going through the criminal justice system, it may not be concluded in one year then at the end of that time a person would be precluded from filing a civil suit because the criminal justice system found them guilty after a year passed. Victims are relying on the criminal justice system and are not geared to thinking about the civil matter until after the criminal matter has been resolved. Mr. Ray stated the presence of a criminal prosecution containing the likely defendant in a civil case would not prevent the filing of a civil lawsuit. The victim's representative could file the lawsuit and still proceed. If necessary, a stay of the civil action could be ordered until the criminal case was resolved. Ms. Stroth, speaking from personal experience as a family member of a murder victim, stated that in the State of Louisiana that was not what occurred. Ms. Ohrenschall disclosed that she was also a lawyer, not acting in that capacity at this time. She asked about a person injured so severely that they would not be in a position to consider filing suit within one year. Ms. Ohrenschall further described her personal experience as a victim in an automobile accident. Her condition was hovering between life and death for at least three months and was not near stable within a year and would not have been able to make a decision about filing suit within one year as she was just trying to survive. Narrowing this down to a one year statute you may be adding to the impulse of having to file suits while plaintiffs are fighting severe pain and suffering and cannot clearly think through their decision. Ms. Del Papa stated there will be competing interests in the discussion of A.B. 2 but felt that one of the benefits of having a one year statute of limitations would reduce the stress and frustration from having an unresolved issue in the victim's life. Mr. Ray stated their proposal was not intended to "cut off" the type of situations that have been proposed but rather reduce the thousands of cases that could be handled more expeditiously. Mr. Humke disclosed he was a member of the State Bar of Nevada and we do have a citizen legislature which is our strength in this state. Mr. Humke noted that Mr. Sandoval had located the statute regarding "tolling" the statute of limitation and suggested that Chairman Anderson direct the legal staff to present some information to the committee on the "tolling" of the statute of limitations in this area or perhaps additional witnesses could address this area. Chairman Anderson agreed and directed Mr. Neilander to provide that information to the committee. Mr. Bill Bradley, practicing lawyer with the law firm, Bradley, Drendel & Jeanney, and board member of the Nevada Trial Lawyers stated he was in opposition to A.B. 2. Mr. Bradley does not believe the amendment to the current statute of limitations will solve the problems addressed by the AG but will only create additional problems that overwhelm the small area to which the purpose of this bill was sought by the AG--the prisoner lawsuits. Mr. Bradley stated the inmate lawsuits were a concern to everyone but if you shorten the statute of limitations to one year, three months, or five days, the inmates will still file claims before the statute runs as they have time on their hands and excellent libraries. His main concern is the problem that shortening the statute of limitations would create on the rest of the civil justice system. Mr. Bradley prepared a chart of an overview of a personal injury lawsuit comparing the one year time frame and the two year time frame. A copy of that chart is attached hereto as (Exhibit H). Mr. Bradley stated "generally" the defendants are notified. There are usually incident reports and/or police reports where the witnesses are listed. Mr. Bradley included that people do not rush to see attorneys. Normally when a plaintiff is hurt they sign a medical release authorizing the defendant to obtain the medical records and monitoring of the case is on-going. Generally, stabilization of the client's medical condition does not occur until around 16-18 month area. At the end of that period the client may be in a position to fully, adequately, and fairly evaluate their case. From the 18 to 21 month period this negotiation process continues. Hopefully the case settles without the involvement of attorneys. Only if there is a difference of opinion as to fault or amount of damages does the plaintiff go to the lawyer for representation. A two year statute in the State of Nevada has been in place for over 100 years. Thirty states have a two year statute in place, including Arizona, he believes. A handout provided by Mr. Bradley is attached hereto as (Exhibit I). It contains a chart of the statute of limitations laws throughout the United States. Mr. Bradley then went over the proposal of a one year statute of limitation with the average injury case. In the one year proposal, within six months of medical treatment the individual feels pressure to file a lawsuit and upon such filing the defendant is required to hire a lawyer to defend the action. At 12 months, depositions are taking place at $400+, travel and expert witnesses fees are being incurred and the cost is going up because the individual has been forced to hire a lawyer. Mr. Bradley added passage of A.B. 2 would actually benefit the members of the bar association due to increased filings. However, the courts will be more burdened with lawsuits. Although that may benefit lawyers, it is not efficient to the injured people. Mr. Bradley felt that what is going on in California and their court systems is important to us. In California now it takes five years from filing a lawsuit to getting into the courtroom. In Reno, it is six to nine months. In Las Vegas it is approximately one and one-half years. Regarding the inability to locate witnesses, Mr. Bradley relayed a lawsuit he had against the Attorney General's office wherein the names of the witnesses were on the police report. The witnesses were contacted and interviewed by his office but the deputy AG refused to contact the witness for their own interview. The witnesses wanted to talk but no one wanted to talk them from the AG. He found it difficult to believe that the AG was having problems with locating witnesses especially in light of the amount of resources they have available to them in locating witnesses. He feels there would be increased filings, increased costs, and a burden on the court systems with the one year statute of limitation proposal. In reviewing the chart utilized by Mr. Bradley, Mr. Batten made a comparison between Mr. Bradley's chart which, in his view, showed settlement would occur sooner in the one year statute situation so it would appear more beneficial all the way around. Mr. Bradley explained that the attorneys involvement is very little until the client has become medically stable. Mr. Batten inquired about the hospitalized individual and the inference made by the AG individual may be given some sort of consideration for filing after the one year statute of limitations. Mr. Bradley was not aware of the "tolling" of the statute of limitations because a plaintiff did not know they were hurt and further believed this would be committing malpractice. There is a distinction in the medical malpractice statutes but not the run-of-the-mill personal injury case. Ms. Steel indicated her impression of Ms. Del Papa's presentation was not that the number of tort claims would diminish, but that it would be easier to defend those claims were they fresher in the mind of the witnesses. Also, Ms. Steel thought it was possible to predict what types of damages are going to be incurred in the event the person is not totally stabilized but the lawsuit could still be filed. She wondered if it was necessary to know the full extent of your damages prior to filing a claim. She also inquired about how he obtained his statistics on the chart he prepared. Mr. Bradley stated he utilized his own personal experience for the typical personal injury case and the chart was just to be used as a general overview. Ms. Steel asked how many cases in his law firm go nowhere, settle within one year, settle within two years, and how many go to trial. Mr. Bradley indicated an approximation of 15% to 25% settle within one year and only 5% go to trial. None of his cases just sit and go nowhere. Mr. Perkins asked if we were to remain with the current two year statute what suggestions would they have for keeping the evidence preserved and not contaminated. Mr. Bradley believed the information was automatically preserved but also indicated there was a new line of authority being developed called "spoilation of evidence" wherein if there is a piece of evidence lost through neglect, a policy would be in place. He felt the AG was concerned with not getting timely notice of an accident and sometimes the first notice they receive is of a lawsuit having been filed. Mr. Perkins stated, from his experience in the criminal and civil justice system, location of witnesses can be very difficult, especially in light of the fact that Nevada is a very transient state. Mr. Schneider broached the topic of lawyer television ads which refer the viewer to see your doctor first and then see the lawyer. This seems to indicate a push for a one year statute of limitations. That message seems to be "get the attorney involved instantly." Yet, the presentation by Mr. Bradley indicated the attorney involvement did not occur until the 24th month. Mr. Bradley retorted by stating the lawyers that are advertising on television may be pushing for the one year statute but that is a small percentage of the large picture. Mr. Robert Perry, a Reno resident, and lawyer representing Washoe County plaintiffs and defendants for 25 years, echoed the comments of Mr. Bradley regarding increased costs, delays, less consequential cases, and clogging the court system in a one year statute scenario. Mr. Perry informed the committee that recent rules, such as Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure 16.1 now pressure counsel to move cases along. Also, the mandatory arbitration laws come into play for cases under $25,000.00, depositions, all these costs and time involvement would become activated with a one year statute of limitations. Mr. Perry relayed his personal experience of being rear-ended by a drunk driver wherein he received personal injuries, specifically a broken neck. Mr. Perry only went to a lawyer on the eve of his two year statute of limitations simply because of that law. His condition had not stabilized yet he was forced to get a trial date which subsequently had to be continued, thereby clogging up the courts for some time. Had he been under a one year statute of limitations, his case would have clogged up the courts for one to two years. A.B. 2 will create delay, increase costs, clog the courts, and the arbitration system. Mr. Sandoval asked if he knew how many out-of-state plaintiffs' claims are filed. Mr. Perry, while reflecting on his personal law practice, indicated he may hold one or two out-of-state clients out of about 50 to 60 cases. Mr. Robert Crowell, Attorney at Law, representing Farmers Insurance Group Companies stated his companies are firmly committed to tort reform and they agree with much of Ms. Del Papa's comments regarding reducing delay and costs in the judicial process. However, they also agree with Mr. Bradley's comments. Mr. Crowell testified in opposition to A.B. 2 due to a concern in relating the statute of limitations from two years to one year because of the problems seen in the State of California. He provided statistics regarding attorney involvement in both the State of California and the State of Nevada. Under the two year statute in Nevada the attorney involvement is between 46% to 57% whereas, in California under the one year statute, that figure raises to 80% to 86%. It is their belief that the increase in numbers is because many attorneys will file suit in order to meet the statute of limitation deadline. Their concerns are the same as Mr. Bradley, the one year statute would increase costs rather than reduce them. Mr. Schneider asked for numbers on the other states with one and two year statutes. Mr. Crowell stated he could provide the committee with those numbers. Chairman Anderson informed the committee of bill introductions that require committee introduction to be made at this time. Chairman Anderson read the summaries to the committee and asked for committee introduction of the following Bill Draft Requests (B.D.R.): B.D.R. 5-460 Removes certain felonies involving use of firearm from jurisdiction of juvenile court. B.D.R. 5-462 Makes various changes regarding jurisdiction of juvenile courts. ASSEMBLYMAN PERKINS MOVED FOR COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF THE BILL DRAFTS. ASSEMBLYMAN STEEL SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. Mr. Humke moved that the committee request a bill draft regarding the Interim Report of Washoe County Grand Jury which recommends a change in NRS 179A.100 regarding law enforcement agencies supplying information to social service agencies (Exhibit J) which was supplied to him by a court-appointed attorney in a writing. ASSEMBLYMAN HUMKE MOVED FOR THE DRAFTING OF AN APPROPRIATE BILL. ASSEMBLYMAN GOLDWATER SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY BY THOSE PRESENT. Chairman Anderson notified the audience that the background document on tort reform 95-11 was available to the public through publications. Chairman Anderson briefed the committee on the agendas currently set for the adjournment to Las Vegas. No further business having come before the committee, Chairman Anderson adjourned the committee at 10:40 a.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Joi Davis, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Chairman Assemblyman David E. Humke, Chairman Assembly Committee on Judiciary February 1, 1995 Page