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


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?