ILNews

Houses active as session nears end

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

As this year's legislative session winds down, several bills of interest to the legal community have made it through both houses, but many remained stuck in conference committee Thursday.

Senate Bill 163, a child support bill with the controversial provision allowing for garnishment of back child support from casino winnings, passed the full Senate 49-0 Thursday.

SB 394, an attorney general matters bill, has been signed by the president pro tempore. The bill authorizes the attorney general to intervene in a declaratory judgment action alleging a statute or ordinance is unconstitutional, as well as allows the AG to file an amicus brief without permission of the parties or court.

SB 36 also has been signed by the president pro tempore. The bill provides that magistrates who meet certain criteria may be certified as special judges.

SB 140, dealing with adoption matters, passed out of conference committee and is now ready for enrollment.

House Bill 1154, allowing commissioners in Marion County to have the same powers and duties as magistrates, is ready for enrollment. The bill passed the House unanimously Monday.

HB 1193 is also ready for enrollment, passing Monday by a vote of 91-1. The bill establishes a law enforcement, school policing, and youth work group run by the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute. The work group will consist of 26 voting members, including an attorney, law school professor, and judge. The group will submit annual reports with information on legislation and training curricula for schools and law enforcement to various officials, including the governor and the Indiana Supreme Court chief justice.

Several bills remained in conference committee at Indiana Lawyer deadline.

The Senate and the House released conference committee reports for SB 307 Thursday, removing provisions added by the House concerning the establishment of a third Bartholomew Superior Court and a unified Clark Circuit Court. The Senate report passed late Thursday afternoon.

SB 149, a Department of Child Services bill that has added language about out-of-state placements, remained in conference committee Thursday. Also stalling in conference committees were SB 224, a bill that specifies how sex offenders can remove their names from the registry if they qualify; SB 399 that deals with caps on fines for moving violations; HB 1271 on problem-solving courts; and HB 1276, which was amended to add language requiring the Judicial Technology Automation Committee to report on the number of divorce decrees entered in the state.

The General Assembly intended to wrap up the session before March 14, possibly concluding Thursday, but that was still up in the air at IL deadline.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT