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. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT