ILNews

Unified courts, judicial nomination bills move

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Several bills of impact on the courts saw action this week before the Indiana General Assembly shut down for two days after a winter storm hit the state.

Senate Bill 91, which establishes a unified Circuit Court in Henry and Madison counties; and SB 499, which would change the selection of Lake Superior judges from election to nomination, passed second readings Monday.

SB 169, which deals with probate, trusts, and transfer on death transfers, was placed back on second reading Jan. 27 and reread and passed with amendments on Monday.

House Bill 1153, which deals with problem-solving courts, was passed 98-0 by the full House of Representatives Monday. The House judiciary committee also passed HB 1548, which recognizes foreign country money judgments. Also on Monday, the Committee on Local Government amended and passed HB 1311, which deals with changes to planning and zoning law. One part of that bill eliminates review of zoning decisions by certiorari and establishes a judicial review procedure.

Senate Bill 97 passed out of the judiciary committee Jan. 27 with amendments. The bill establishes a procedure for a company to provide a loan to a plaintiff in an action in exchange for the contingent right to receive a part of the potential proceeds of the action. Also on Jan. 27, the committee passed SB 301, which would increase the automated record keeping fee a court clerk can charge with the extra money going to the Judicial Technology and Automation Committee to pay for Odyssey, the statewide case management system. The committee reassigned the bill to the Committee on Tax and Fiscal Policy.

Because the weather shut down the General Assembly for two days, committee hearings were postponed and are in the process of being rescheduled. As of Indiana Lawyer deadline, the House of Representatives was still working on the new schedule and planned on releasing a new calendar today.

Jennifer Mertz, principal secretary of the Indiana Senate, said in an e-mail that Wednesday morning committees have been authorized to schedule an additional meeting on the morning of Feb. 11. Wednesday afternoon committees may schedule an additional meeting the afternoon of Feb. 11. Tuesday committees are able to schedule an extra meeting after session on Feb. 8 or 10. She said it’s up to each committee chair to determine if they will schedule more bills at their usual committee time next week or hold an additional meeting.

A complete list of bills is available on the legislature’s website.

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. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  2. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

ADVERTISEMENT