ILNews

Session nears end, may finish early

IL Staff
February 26, 2010
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


This session of the Indiana General Assembly is scheduled to end March 14, but legislators are working to try to finish the session early. It's not known for certain when the House and Senate will wrap up, but both sides have the goal to possibly end by March 7, one week before the constitutionally scheduled deadline.

March 3 is the scheduled last day for reading Senate and House bills before the other chamber, but the last day for second reading in the House ended up being Wednesday. The last day for third reading in the House was Thursday.

- Senate Bill 36, a magistrates' bill, offered an amendment on second reading that weaved judicial-mandate language into the bill, but the amendment failed to pass. The bill passed unanimously on third reading Thursday and is ready for enrollment.

- SB 163, a child support bill with the controversial provision allowing for garnishment of back child support from casino winnings, was returned to the Senate with amendments. - Amendments to the grandparent visitation bill, SB 59, including one that would give children more of a voice as they get older regarding visitation, failed to pass on second reading. The bill died on third reading Thursday.

- SB 307, on Bartholomew, Clark, and Floyd courts, was returned to the Senate with amendments, including one on making new infraction judgments "advisory." The bill is now in conference committee.

- SB 149, regarding Department of Child Services matters, including out-of-state placement, passed by a vote of 83-16 on third reading. 

SB 224, an electronic dissemination of indecent material and sex offender registration bill; SB 394, regarding attorney general matters; and SB 399, on fines for moving violations all passed second reading without amendments as of Indiana Lawyer deadline. In the Senate, three bills of interest to the legal community moved back to the House with amendments: House Bill 1154, on Marion County courts converting commissioners into magistrates; HB 1271, on problem-solving courts; and HB 1276, which includes Judicial Technology Automation Committee matters. 

HB 1154 now has a stipulation that traffic infraction money doesn't revert to the county general fund or state general fund for general use, and the money can only be used to compensate commissioners or pay guardian ad litem costs. HB 1271 was amended so that mental-health records of a patient may be disclosed to the court without consent. Five amendments to HB 1276 failed on second reading, including one that required a program to collect domestic violence data and report it to the FBI; the only one to pass dealt with the kinds of medical records that should be available for public inspection.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  2. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT