ILNews

New legislation streaming in

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana Court of Appeals expansion, executing the mentally ill, and how judges find representation in mandate litigation are just a few proposals already on tap for the General Assembly to consider this session.

The day before lawmakers are set to return to Indianapolis and begin the long budget-setting session, more than 100 separate pieces of legislation have been filed and many have direct impact on the legal community.

• New district: On a recommendation from the Commission on Courts, Senate Bill 35 proposes establishing a new sixth district for Indiana's intermediate appellate court, bumping up the number of judges from 15 to 18 starting in January 2010. This would be the first new district since 1991, and would include a judge from each of the court's original three districts.

The legislation declares this an emergency act, noting a price tag of $1.3 million in the first year and $2.2 in the following two years - complete with an array of jurists, law clerks, and administrative staff that would be needed. If passed, the Judicial Nominating Commission would have to interview and recommend three candidates by November, and the governor would have the final say on who'd be appointed to the new panel.

• Mandate: Sen. Phil Boots, R-Crawfordsville, proposed Senate Bill 44 that deals with judicial mandate representation, a direct result of mandate cases the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled on in recent years and discussions this past summer about how cash-strapped communities can ill afford those legal costs. The bill would require the Indiana Attorney General to represent any court that has issued a mandate for funds for court operation or court-related functions, and the state would not be allowed to reimburse a judge for any costs related to hiring a private attorney on mandate actions.

• Death penalty: Senate Bill 22 prohibits the death penalty from being issued to anyone with a severe mental illness, and sets up a procedure to determine whether a murder defendant can be classified that way. This legislation is similar to measures proposed in the past, and comes in the wake of suggestions from a commission created in honor of the late Sen. Anita Bowser, who died in 2007 and was an advocate of death penalty legislation.

• Grandparent visitation: Senate Bill 26, authored by Sen. John Waterman, R-Shelburn, provides that a child's grandparent can seek visitation rights when a parent or guardian unreasonably denies or restricts visitation. The proposal eliminates current conditions for which grandparents can seek visitation rights.

A complete rundown of active legislation can be found online.

Aside from those issues, the General Assembly will likely spend most of its time focusing on the state's two-year budget and dealing with money issues stemming from previously passed property tax laws. Local government reform, including court changes, is expected to be a significant topic of discussion, though observers wonder how much may actually pass given the financial focus.

The Senate can file bills through Jan. 15, while the House of Representatives has until the end of January. Lawmakers have until April 29 for any action this session.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT