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. 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