ILNews

Power of attorney, Allen County magistrate bills ready for enrollment

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Legislation that deals with power of attorney and that would give Allen Circuit Court a second full-time magistrate have made it through both houses of the Indiana Legislature.

Senate Bill 157 will allow for copies of a power of attorney to have the same force and effect as the original as long as the person granting the power of attorney certifies that the copy is correct and true. The bill also asks the Legislative Council to take a look at issues related to POA during the 2012 legislative interim. SB 152 allows for the Allen Circuit judge to appoint a second full-time magistrate beginning July 1, 2013. The bill repeals the judge’s authority to appoint a hearing officer who has the powers of a magistrate.

SB 97, which looks to narrow the scope of Indiana’s public intoxication law, is being considered by a conference committee. The bill will address the issues that arose in Moore v. State, in which the Indiana Supreme court reinstated the public intoxication conviction of a woman who was riding in her car that was being driven by a sober driver. The car was pulled over and police discovered the driver didn’t have a valid license. When Brenda Moore couldn’t drive the car because of her state of intoxication, police arrested her for public intoxication.

The legislation says that someone can’t be convicted of public intoxication unless the person endangers his or her own life, someone else’s life, or is likely to disturb the peace, create a disturbance, or harass someone else.

Another bill inspired by a Supreme Court ruling – Barnes v. State – has passed third reading in the House and has been sent back to the Senate with amendments. SB 1 specifies that a person may use reasonable force against any other person – including law enforcement – in certain circumstances.

SB 235, which would add a fee to address declining IOTLA funds, has stalled in the House Ways and Means Committee, but language was added to House Bill 1049 creating a $1 pro bono legal fee before July 1, 2020, that would go to the Indiana Bar Foundation. That bill, which also addresses courts, the inspector general and protection orders, is back in the House for consideration.

Legislation that would phase out Indiana’s inheritance tax, SB 293, has passed the House and been sent back to the Senate with amendments. SB 18, which dictates that a parent no longer has to provide child support after a child turns 19, is also back in the Senate with amendments.

Thus far, Gov. Mitch Daniels has received 26 enrolled acts this session and signed 18. To view the status of these or any other bills, visit the General Assembly’s bill watch page.
 

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