ILNews

Committee action deadline nearing

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana General Assembly's influential judiciary committees have a packed week ahead where both representatives and senators will review a mass of legislation as deadline approaches.

This week, the Senate and House judiciary committees each met once to consider a handful of bills that involved everything from no-contact orders, judgments of foreign courts, grandparent visitation, and magistrates in the state's largest county.

On Tuesday, the House Judiciary approved legislation on enforcing foreign judgments and no-contact orders by courts. The House Family, Children and Human Affairs Committee passed a bill Wednesday allowing for grandparent visitation, while that same day the House Ways and Means Committee approved a bill that would allow Marion County to convert all of its commissioners into magistrates, saving about $2 million and allowing it to use that money for local guardian ad litem expenses. The Senate Judiciary spent its weekly meeting mostly discussing a resolution that deals with the definition of marriage, but it also approved legislation making technical corrections to Indiana Code.

But this week's action pales in comparison to what both the House and Senate committees will likely consider next week. The last day the House and Senate can hear their own bills for final passage is Feb. 3, after which legislation must switch to go through the other house's committee and approval process.

That means a busy agenda for those watching legislation that pertains specifically to the legal community. For example, the House Judiciary committee has meetings planned Monday and Tuesday to discuss issues such as out-of-state placements of juveniles and the Unauthorized Practice of Law for non-attorneys.

The Senate Corrections Criminal and Civil Matters Committee has set a meeting Tuesday during which members are expected to consider 10 bills, including sex-offender tracking, bail statutes, and enhanced murder sentences. At least one Senate Judiciary Committee meeting is also planning for next week, according to the office of committee chair Sen. Richard Bray, R-Martinsville.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT