Jury Service Reform: S.B. 232 (2006).
Provides a one-time postponement to another date within one year
Provides a one-time postponement to another date within one year upon a showing of hardship, extreme inconvenience, or necessity. Protects an individual called for jury service who provides reasonable notice to his or her employer from being subjected to adverse employment action. Prohibits employers from requiring or requesting employees to use annual leave for jury service. In addition, the legislation eliminates automatic postponement from jury service including those for ferry-keepers and persons employed in attendance at such ferry, people age 65 and older, government officials, legislators, armed services, veterinarians, dentists, Indianapolis School Board members, and police and fire department members.
Latest News
View all news
New Poll Finds Strong Bipartisan Support for Government Action vs. Litigation When it Comes to Handling the COVID-19 Pandemic
While COVID-19 relief efforts stall in Congress, public support for aid to small businesses and others impacted by the pandemic remains high. According to a new survey released today by […]
Missouri Supreme Court declines to review billion-dollar award against Johnson & Johnson baby powder
Juliette Fairley of the St. Louis Record reports on the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision not to review a $2 billion verdict.
Trial Lawyers Look to Profit Off Pandemic by Targeting Insurers
ATRA President Tiger Joyce penned an op-ed for Law360 on the surge of COVID-19-related lawsuits targeting the insurance industry.
Pa. Supreme Court Disregards SCOTUS Ruling
Nicholas Malfitano of the Pennsylvania Record writes about the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s ruling on jurisdiction in a lawsuit filed by an out-of-state resident.
COVID-19 Lawsuit Protections Signed Into Law in Michigan
ATRA praises the passage of HB 6030 in Michigan, enacting COVID-19 liability protections.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Defies SCOTUS Precedent
ATRA’s statement on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s ruling in Hammons v. Ethicon to allow an out-of-state lawsuit to continue, openly defying SCOTUS precedent.