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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT