tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4870905574657583796.post3636990676308084415..comments2009-05-13T10:35:03.292-05:00Steve Harrelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02525770449071261507noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4870905574657583796.post-87874208133835512872009-05-13T10:35:00.000-05:002009-05-13T10:35:00.000-05:00Cool. Thanks. I almost understand now.Jason Tolbert, CPAhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07759480461695139232noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4870905574657583796.post-56264149730645051432009-05-13T09:21:00.000-05:002009-05-13T09:21:00.000-05:00Well, the chamber/business community/medical society believes that restrictions are needed to the civil justice system in order to attract and maintain business development. They also believe that high insurance rates are due to lawsuits/lawyers/frivolity of filings. The 2003 Civil Justice Reform Act was the product of their position on the issue after negotiations.<br /><br />The Plaintiff's bar/labor, etc. tend to believe in the jury system and don't believe legislative restrictions are necessary. The court found two provisions of the Civil Justice Reform Act to be unconstitutional -- they didn't touch the limits issue, nor did they discuss some of the other portions of the act. Some call it a victory for the trial lawyers. Regardless, it'll have substantial impact on civil suits and elections alike.Steve Harrelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02525770449071261507noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4870905574657583796.post-11264346609878662782009-05-12T14:41:00.000-05:002009-05-12T14:41:00.000-05:00Uh, yeah. Can you translate this for us non-lawyers?Jason Tolbert, CPAhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07759480461695139232noreply@blogger.com