ILNews

JTAC fee bill amended, other bills moving

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Senate bill aimed at increasing the automated record-keeping fee to pay for a statewide case management system made it out of committee, but not before legislators decreased the fee beginning this year.

The introduced version of Senate Bill 301, which was prepared by the Commission on Courts, sought to increase the automated record-keeping fee to $10 from July 1, 2011, to June 30, 2015. The fee would then be reduced back to the current amount of $7 beginning July 1, 2015.

But the Committee on Tax and Fiscal Policy amended the bill Thursday and actually reduced the fee to $6 from July 1, 2011, to June 30, 2013. After that, the fee is reduced again to $4. The proposed increase in fees was to pay for Odyssey, the case management system that the Judicial Technology and Automation Committee is implementing across the state.

The committee also increased the public defense administration fee court clerks collect in civil actions to $5 beginning July 1. Legislators also increased the semi-annual amount the auditor of the state transfers for deposits into the public defense fund from $2.7 million to $3.7 million.

Other bills that have seen action in the last week:

-SB 91, establishing unified Circuit Courts in Henry and Madison counties, passed the Senate Feb. 3;
-SB 169, on probate, trusts, and transfer on death transfers, passed the Senate Feb. 3;
- SB 180, on limited partnerships and liability companies, passed the Judiciary Committee Feb. 10;
- SB 499, providing for Lake Superior County Division judges to be nominated instead of elected, passed the Senate Feb. 3;
- SB 520, regarding the application of foreign laws, passed the Judiciary Committee Feb. 9;
-SB 530, merging the offense of criminal deviate conduct into the crime of rape, passed the Corrections, Criminal & Civil Matters Committee Feb. 10;
- HB 1266, establishing a unified Circuit Court for Clark County, passed the Courts & Criminal Code Committee Feb. 10;
-HB 1311, on changes to planning and zoning law, passed the House Feb. 10; and
- HB 1548, recognition of foreign country money judgments, passed the House Feb. 8.

A complete list of legislation is available on the General Assembly’s website.
 

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. 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