ILNews

ALJ, problem-solving courts bills moving

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A House bill dealing with problem-solving courts and a Senate bill that involves administrative proceedings and administrative law judge disqualifications have made it out of their respective judiciary committees.

House Bill 1153 was amended by the House Judiciary Committee and passed out of committee Jan. 20. The introduced bill included a chapter on possession of handguns by judicial officers, which was removed in committee. HB 1153 spells out when a problem-solving court may terminate an individual’s participation in the court program. The bill also makes the parent or guardian of a child accepted into a problem-solving court program financially responsible for court service fees and chemical testing expenses.

Senate Bill 67 made it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee Jan. 20 with several amendments. The legislation deals with administrative proceedings, dictates that the proceedings before an administrative law judge are de novo, and adds to the section dealing with ALJ disqualifications.

Also moving as of Monday morning:
-    SB 43, which would allow the parole board to require certain child molesters and other sex and violent offenders to wear a GPS tracking device. The bill moved out of the Committee on Corrections, Criminal & Civil Matters Jan. 12 and passed second reading in the Senate Jan. 18.
-    SB 74, which deals with guardianships, and HB 1055, which deals with adult guardianships and protective proceedings, both made it out of their respective judiciary committees last week.
-    SB 169, involving probate, trusts, and transfer on death transfers, gained approval of  the Senate Judiciary Committee Jan. 20 without amendments. The legislation would allow for joint owners of motor vehicles and watercraft to transfer title as a transfer on death transaction. It also deals with matrimonial property and trusts and other probate matters.

Several bills of interest will be heard in committee this week. This morning, the House Judiciary Committee heard three bills, including HB 1182 on the creation of a consumer protection assistance fund. The bill passed and moved on for second reading. On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hear several bills including SB 91 on unifying Henry and Madison Circuit courts; SB 301 proposing an automated record-keeping fee that would fund the implementation of case management system Odyssey in state courts; SB 97 on the funding of lawsuits; and SB 499 on nominating Lake Superior judges instead of the current election process.

A complete list of bills is available on the General Assembly’s website at http://www.in.gov/legislative/.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT