ILNews

Bill adding magistrates, judges in 3 counties moves to governor

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Legislation that will add more judicial officers in Hamilton, Hendricks and Owen counties passed unanimously out of the House of Representatives Tuesday.

Senate Enrolled Act 486 allows Hamilton Superior judges to appoint a third full-time magistrate and the judges of Hendricks Superior Court to jointly appoint two full-time magistrates. A second judge will be added to Owen Circuit Court. The legislation also establishes a unified Circuit Court in Owen County, with two judges as of Jan. 1, 2015.

The introduced version of the bill was prepared by the Commission on Courts. If signed by Gov. Mike Pence, it will become effective July 1, 2013. A fiscal impact statement prepared April 1 says that the full effect of the bill on state expenditures from Indiana’s general fund will not happen until Fiscal Year 2016, when all the judicial officers will be appointed and serving.

Last week, the Senate passed 49-0 House Bill 1061 which would give Marion Superior judges the ability to appoint 12 full-time magistrates as of Jan. 1, 2014. No more than six may be from the same political party. It also lets Warrick Circuit and Superior judges jointly appoint a magistrate. That bill was returned to the House with an amendment stating the Warrick County magistrate would continue in office until jointly removed by the Circuit and Superior judges.

 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT