Bill
SB 1161
Arizona: Standardizes sheriff/constable civil-action fees and requires public, monthly activity logs.
Note: the materials you provided contain text from three different bills, all labeled “SB 1161,” from different jurisdictions and with different subjects. Below are separate, concise summaries for each version so readers can see the distinct purposes, provisions, affected parties, and procedural status.
1) Arizona — SB 1161 (Amends A.R.S. § 11-445) — sheriffs & constables; fees, mileage, activity logs
- Purpose / intent: Update and codify fees and procedures for sheriffs and constables in civil actions; require standardized, public activity logs for constables.
- Key provisions:
- Sets specific fee schedule for sheriffs (e.g., $16 to serve an original summons; $16 per witness; $48 for writs of attachment; $8 for affidavit of service; $56 plus disbursements for skip tracing).
- For writs of possession/restitution: $48 plus $40/hour per deputy/constable for actual time beyond three hours.
- Mileage: $2.40 per mile actually traveled (one-way), capped at 200 miles and minimum $16; for constables, mileage generally computed from the justice-of-the-peace office in the precinct where the constable serves (special rules for counties with population over 3 million).
- Collection/commission rules for executions (e.g., $8 per $100 collected, up to $2,000; half fee if collected without sale).
- Constables must maintain a standardized daily activity log listing processes served/attempted (by case), plaintiff/defendant names, addresses (unless law precludes), date, and daily mileage.
- Logs are public records, must be available at the constable’s office and filed monthly with the county board of supervisors (by the 10th of the following month); board decides filing method.
- Text includes language about writ fees for justice-of-the-peace writs to be deposited in a constable ethics, standards and training fund.
- Who is affected: county sheriffs, constables, justice courts, parties to civil actions who pay service fees, and county boards (administration of filings/funds).
- Procedural/timeline aspects: Appears in chaptered version as Chapter 254, approved by governor July 1, 2025; Section 2 references a two-thirds enactment requirement under the Arizona Constitution.
2) Hawaii — SB 1161 (Labor / non-compete prohibition for certain industries)
- Purpose / intent: Void existing non-compete and non-solicit clauses and prohibit their future use in employment contracts for specified sectors to increase worker mobility and wages.
- Key provisions:
- Amends HRS § 480-4(d) to prohibit inclusion of non-compete and non-solicit clauses in employment contracts for employees of technology businesses, restaurants, or retail stores. Such clauses are declared void.
- Defines “non-compete clause,” “non-solicit clause,” “technology business,” “software development,” “information technology development,” and “restaurant” for the statute.
- Retroactive effect: the act takes effect retroactive to July 1, 2015.
- Who is affected: employers and employees in Hawaii in the covered industries (technology businesses, restaurants, retail stores); employers will no longer be able to rely on contractual non-competes or non-solicits for those employees.
- Procedural/timeline aspects: Draft includes legislative findings referencing prior Hawaii law and studies; bill text indicates retroactive application to 2015. (Sponsors and specific legislative steps appear mixed in the provided materials.)
3) Illinois — SB 1161 (Springfield High Speed Railroad Community Advisory Act — technical edit)
- Purpose / intent: Make a technical correction to the short title of the Springfield High Speed Railroad Community Advisory Act.
- Key provision: Corrects wording in Section 1 (removes duplicate word “the the” / adjusts short title wording).
- Who is affected: No substantive policy change; purely technical/clerical correction affecting statutory text.
- Procedural/timeline aspects: Introduced Jan 24, 2025; listed actions include committee referrals and readings (this appears to be a very limited, technical amendment).
If you want, I can:
- Prepare a single consolidated brief focused only on one of these (specify which jurisdiction), or
- Produce a side-by-side comparison of the three items, or
- Extract specific legal text changes (redline-style) for any one version.
Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.
Sign in to ask a question.
