ILNews

General Assembly reaches midpoint

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

At the midway point in this Indiana General Assembly session, dozens of bills died this week when one house didn't vote on them while others moved on for further consideration.

An Indiana Lawyer review of the legislation listed on the state legislature's Web site shows that 135 of 420 Senate bills and 104 of 391 House bills survived, though many bills mirrored similar measures or have even been merged into other legislation that's moved on. The totals include numerous vehicle bills that could have been used for particular issues if needed as the legislative session progressed.

Some pieces of legislation that died involved court reporting licensing, an oversight commission for the state's judicial computer systems, and a resolution involving judicial mandates. One bill that would have dubbed any non-attorneys' illegal practice of law as racketeering activity survived a House committee but didn't get a final vote, to the surprise of the those in the legal community watching the legislation.

But various bills moved on, including legislation that would: expand the statutory framework for problem-solving courts, repeal a 2009 special session change giving the Indiana Department of Child Services more authority on out-of-state placements, revise the state's grandparent visitation laws, allow Marion County to convert all of its commissioners into magistrates at no expense to the state, expand the authority of the Attorney General's Office and Solicitor General in various ways, and allow magistrates statewide to serve as part-time senior judges. A bill that would revise Indiana's rights of publicity statue and create an interim commission to study that issue more in-depth also continues to move.

Even in the tough budget times, when some courts held off requesting new judicial officers and resources, lawmakers approved the only request for a new court that came before it so far this session: HB 1269. It would both unify the Clark Circuit and Superior courts and also create a new Bartholomew Superior Court in July 2011 and pay for it using a fee of at least $20 on each traffic infraction. Lawmakers had expressed concern previously because it could change how the state handles the state court funding, but the bill passed the House unanimously by a 98-0 vote.

One close vote on a legal-related bill was with HB 1255, which involves proof of collateral-source payments and would prohibit a court from admitting into evidence any write-off, discount, or other deduction associated with a collateral-source payment in a personal injury or wrongful death action. This topic was the subject of an Indiana Supreme Court decision last year in Stanley v. Walker, 906 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. 2009), which held that the state's collateral source statute doesn't bar evidence of discounted amounts to determine the reasonable value of medical services provided to plaintiffs in those actions. The bill made it out of committee, and representatives voted 57-40 to send it to the Senate.

Now, the opposite house of the General Assembly must consider all legislation, and some issues that have died already could be weaved into bills that are still alive. Committee meetings begin again next week, and each side has until March 3 to take a final vote on legislation and then, if necessary, work out final details in conference committees before the session ends March 14.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT