Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jan 19, 1995
Civil Justice Reform Act of 1995 - Amends the Federal judicial code to entitle the prevailing party in a diversity action to attorney's fees only to the extent that such party prevails on any position or claim advanced during the action. Requires the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts to study and report to the Congress on the caseloads of such diversity actions and the awarding of attorney's fees therein. Repeals such entitlement five years after the enactment of this Act. Outlines provisions under which any party to a civil action filed in a district court may serve upon, and have accepted by, any adverse party a written offer to allow judgment to be entered for the money or property specified in the offer. Requires such offer to be accepted by the adverse party within 14 days or to be considered withdrawn. Requires a claimant, at least 30 days before filing suit in a civil action brought in a U.S. district court, to transmit written notice to any intended defendant at an address reasonably calculated to provide actual notice. Directs the claimant, at the commencement of the action, to file in such court a certificate of service evidencing compliance with such provision. Provides for a 30-day extension of any applicable statute of limitations that would expire during the period of such notice. Makes such provision inapplicable under specified circumstances. Amends the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act to provide that, in actions brought by any adult convicted of a crime and confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility, the court shall continue such case for up to 180 days in order to require the exhaustion of remedies. (Current law calls for a 90-day extension if the court believes it to be appropriate and in the interests of justice.) Requires the Attorney General, upon the request of a State or local correctional facility, to provide technical advice and assistance in establishing plain, speedy, and effective administrative remedies for inmate grievances. Prohibits the district court in a civil action from permitting opinion evidence on the same issue from more than one expert witness for each party, except upon a showing of good cause.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze S.243 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine S.243 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine S.243 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine S.243 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.