ILNews

JTAC fee, Clark County courts bills before committees

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A bill that would increase the automated record-keeping fee to pay for implementation of a statewide case-management system and a bill that proposes to create a unified Circuit Court in Clark County are just two of the bills before committees this week in the Indiana General Assembly.

Senate Bill 301, which deals with the automated record-keeping fee, will be heard at 8 a.m. Tuesday before the Tax and Fiscal Policy Committee. The Senate Judiciary Committee reassigned the bill to this committee last week. The bill proposes that the automated record-keeping fee should be increased to $10 from July 1, 2011, to June 30, 2015. The $3 increase from the current fee will help pay for Odyssey, a case-management system run by the Indiana Supreme Court’s Judicial Technology and Automation Committee. After June 30, 2015, the fee would return to the current $7 charge.

The Senate Corrections, Criminal, and Civil Matters Committee meets at 9 a.m. Tuesday to discuss eight bills, including Senate Bill 540 on the discharge of long-term inmates and Senate Bill 561 on corrections and sentencing.

At 9 a.m. Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hear six bills focusing on the following areas: Senate Bill 459, access to identifying information for adoptions; Senate Bill 96, which would add a state-paid deputy prosecuting attorney in Cass County; Senate Bill 63, suspension of local officeholders from office; Senate Bill 520, enforcement of foreign law; Senate Bill 34, interstate compact for juveniles; and Senate Bill 180, limited partnerships and liability companies.

The committee meets again at 9 a.m. Friday to discuss the following legislative proposals: Senate Bill 582, settlement conferences in residential foreclosures; Senate Bill 465, Department of Child Services matters; Senate Bill 215, forfeiture and amount of law enforcement costs; Senate Bill 463, mandatory retirement age for trial court judges; Senate Bill 212, trial court jurisdiction and the repealing of laws on county courts; and Senate Bill 214, state use of contingency fee counsel.

On Wednesday, the House Family, Children, and Human Affairs Committee meets at 10:30 a.m. to discuss four bills including House Bill 1316, which establishes the Division of Youth Services Transitional Services Fund to provide juvenile transitional services to delinquent offenders. The bill also allows a juvenile court to order a parent or guardian to pay or reimburse the Department of Correction for costs incurred by the department for a child who is committed to the DOC.

At 1:30 p.m. Wednesday, the House Courts and Criminal Code Committee will hear House Bill 1416, on credit time for approved correspondence courses; House Bill 1324 on child molesting; and House Bill 1266 on the creation of a unified Circuit Court for Clark County.
 

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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT