ILNews

House moves several bills to governor

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana House of Representatives passed several bills on concurrence Tuesday, including legislation on trust administration, magistrates and adoption history information.

House Enrolled Act 1056 makes numerous changes concerning a personal representative’s employment of an attorney, the powers and duties of a personal representative, guardianships, and the rules of trust construction, among other things. The introduced version of the bill was prepared by the Probate Code Study Commission.

HEA 1061 allows Marion Superior Court to appoint 12 full-time magistrates beginning Jan. 1, 2014, and for the judges of Warrick Circuit and Superior courts to jointly appoint a magistrate.

HEA 1029 makes changes to how adoption history information is released, including adding a relative of an adoptee and a pre-adoptive sibling to the list of interested persons who may obtain medical history information and petition the court to release certain information.

HEA 1016 allows for problem-solving courts to provide rehabilitative services as well as adds circumstances under which a person can participate in a problem-solving court program.

HEA 1108 establishes sentencing alternatives for certain juvenile offenders. It also prohibits a court from modifying the sentences of certain serious offenders following a review hearing if the prosecuting attorney objects.

HEA 1392 permits a criminal history provider to provide certain information relating to an incident that did not end with a conviction, as well as information concerning expunged, restricted or reduced convictions to a person required by law to obtain this information. The introduced version of this bill was prepared by the Criminal Law and Sentencing Policy Study Committee.

HEA 1027 provides civil immunity to a registered architect, land surveyor or professional engineer who provides without compensation professional services related to a declared emergency.

These bills move on to Gov. Mike Pence for his signature.

The 2013 legislative session is scheduled to wrap up April 29.

 

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT