July means new laws

July 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Today the majority of bills signed into law by Gov. Mitch Daniels in February and March go into effect. There are a lot of new laws that are of interest to the legal community – judges’ pensions, public records and criminal offenders, juvenile offenders, and inmate credit time, just to name a few.

In combing through list of the new laws, a few jumped out at me. One that many businesses might not realize takes affect today is the requirement of lactation support in the workplace. This means employers who have at least 25 workers have to provide as reasonably possible a private location for an employee to pump breast milk and a refrigerator to store the breast milk. This is great news for the working mothers who have to go a bathroom stall to pump or give up on breastfeeding because of potentially cumbersome logistics when they are at work.

Did you know that we are now able to get an Abraham Lincoln license plate from the BMV celebrating the bicentennial of his birth? The plates are just one more way for Indiana to remind everyone that Indiana was Lincoln’s boyhood home, and it gives Hoosiers yet another option for making a statement with our license plates. So far, I’m not aware of any lawsuits filed as a result of the issuance of these new Abe plates.

Another law passed this session – thought it doesn’t take effect until 2010 – is detergents used in household dishwashers are now going to be subject to prohibition under Indiana Code Section 13-18-9.

Taking effect today, however, is the law that allows a vehicle to be equipped on a year-round basis with tires that have retractable tire studs as long as those studs remain retracted from May 2 to Sept. 30. Although the topic of the law is kind of odd, it does aim to continue to protect Indiana’s roads during the summer from unnecessary damage from those studs.

I must admit I am a bit saddened my favorite introduced bill from this past session didn’t become a law – SB 191. This bill required retail establishments, except for some gas stations, to make employee toilet facilities available to the public if no other facilities were readily available. Did that really need to be a law?

Are there any bills that you are surprised didn’t make it into law or any that surprise you made it all the way to the governor’s office? What was your favorite off-the-wall bill introduced last session?

UPDATE: The Indiana Supreme Court handed down four opinions yesterday afternoon, bringing the total in June to 25. That's the fewest opinions released by the high court in June in the last three years.
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
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT