[{"_1":2,"_124":-5,"_125":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88,100,112],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6144487,"mediaKeyId","5534068-b5e14a5f6c19a24dc3e45c61602bcfa9","parentId",5534068,"title","Supreme Court supports bill to repeal statutes that conflict with court rules; committee to review list","audioSeconds",188,"startMs",2183000,"endMs",2371000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5534068-b5e14a5f6c19a24dc3e45c61602bcfa9&start=2183&end=2371","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5534068-b5e14a5f6c19a24dc3e45c61602bcfa9/thumbnail_2183000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6144487/Ohio/Supreme-Court-supports-bill-to-repeal-statutes-that-conflict-with-court-rules-committee-to-review-list","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6144487-c620ee45f1c6eeeecfee5c6b908a0558/orig.mp4?Expires=1775036006&Signature=MyBqs3laOw2qNNaVXLNE4YWDH~Zddm73tNeusieg5DrD-YH~lDtKR6q7GVuJNV2ZTIs85rFZhBzUcsDJ7djFseNZfKcWjA0r6c6ySW~7w8O6bEYGVycU8LHRvWNSMUBNQTRJD0ta3qhVcMpuCk7l0gDjtMQ3BhrRFFHJqgO3uA5zp157qdR8EINNtl8ZbH04qokI-bgeIy-jhc4Du8Iy4gBZ1tJgrwsl9KuN5H3IIOoaUPuuFXVs9X3gwgK5Byeg--Wuvx9ItTB9sIcyH4LKoUjClnYA~Olbc1yKIJ66sU22lsWmDEXsh0JfQG6b9r-wH0193IP4-eG4JeXz6dpNNw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Ohio Legislature","date","2025-06-18T00:00:00Z","article","Rick Shuster, chief legal officer for the Supreme Court of Ohio, and Mary Augsberger of the Ohio State Bar Association told the House Judiciary Committee that House Bill 260 would repeal sections of the Ohio Revised Code that overlap or conflict with court rules that the Supreme Court adopted under its constitutional authority.

\"This legislation is designed to repeal sections of the Ohio Revised Code, that either overlap or conflict with the rules that have been adopted by the Supreme Court pursuant to its constitutional authority,\" Rick Shuster said in proponent testimony on behalf of Chief Justice Kennedy and the justices. \"Under the constitution, once those rules go into effect, the old sections of the Revised Code that conflict or overlap are considered to be void. House Bill 260 is carrying out the intentions of the constitution in cleaning up those older sections of the Revised Code that have been now superseded by the rules.\"

Shuster and Mary Augsberger provided written lists mapping the statutory sections proposed for elimination to the corresponding Supreme Court rules and offered to work with the committee to reach consensus. Shuster told the committee the Supreme Court can provide ongoing summaries of future rule changes that may conflict with the Revised Code to assist legislative review.

Representative questions touched on specific topics such as grand‑jury foreperson appointment language; Shuster said those criminal‑procedure provisions remain covered in court rules and that the statutory language is not substantively different. No committee vote occurred at the hearing; witnesses asked for collaborative review of the draft deletions and confirmations of corresponding rules.

The sponsor representatives urged the committee to review the provided list and to coordinate with the Supreme Court and bar association to determine which statutory sections should remain or be removed.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Ohio House Judiciary Committee -6-18-2025","oneSentenceSummary","Representatives of the Supreme Court of Ohio and the Ohio State Bar Association told the Judiciary Committee that House Bill 260 would remove statutory provisions that conflict with court rules adopted under the Ohio Constitution; witnesses provided lists of specific sections for committee review.","taxTitle","Judiciary , House of Representatives, Committees, Legislative, Ohio","taxId",80526,"location","Ohio","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6144492,"Panel hears proponent testimony on UCC modernization bill for digital assets (House Bill 195)",798,658000,1456000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5534068-b5e14a5f6c19a24dc3e45c61602bcfa9&start=658&end=1456","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5534068-b5e14a5f6c19a24dc3e45c61602bcfa9/thumbnail_658000.jpg","/articles/6144492/Ohio/Panel-hears-proponent-testimony-on-UCC-modernization-bill-for-digital-assets-House-Bill-195","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6144492-e1717989fb53696dd74e8d05ac49ac0a/orig.mp4?Expires=1775036006&Signature=MLQzISubnHzOjQ7vMqJskeVlNY1axXG3TyJ8dFr05DVlT9GZYmhT4hBiqv~~gNgr7F0Ld3QOZoCSutw-bww9txi00UiE5Hn52H3Gp2-Dk6TjIULS9iw5AwPXtx1i9n5BeisuLYeWu1VOp3NP0FTQNLxpp9cOXd8eXnrftLHW3qF2ACf2xHeuNJl2Op1WElLUXjCMoRIsGNc2X7G1whtkQxioFsU~3GWiMOS7tDd~WrzALvR-tsq-h8sGdfmDKte85ZQQgpSxDLnOBwaafsGv~9KsFDPrNNWMm3zPOoNZeAP0j1EWFSVLwFyiogU4xLfdiGNWmYa1V1iQQXzx~HYo9A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At a second hearing on House Bill 195, legal experts and banking lawyers told the Ohio House Judiciary Committee that the bill would update the Uniform Commercial Code to address digital assets such as cryptocurrencies, non‑fungible tokens and other electronic property.

Professor Jeff Ferriol, speaking on behalf of the Ohio State Bar Association and the Uniform Law Commission, said House Bill 195 contains a new UCC article to provide negotiable‑instrument‑style rules for transferring digital assets and amendments to ensure security‑interest protections for creditors. \"House Bill 195 will update the UCC... First, it provides... what's essentially a negotiable instruments law to ensure the safe and effective transfer of digital assets, like cryptocurrency... Secondly, it will make amendments to existing chapter 1309 of the Ohio Revised Code dealing with security interests to ensure that creditors who rely on electronic digital assets as collateral for their loans are protected,\" he said.

Ferriol described a \"waterfall\" choice‑of‑law rule: the law specified in the electronic record or system governs; if no state is specified, the draft uses the law of the District of Columbia as a default. He said the District of Columbia adopted the uniform act in April 2024 and that a clear national default improves predictability for lenders.

Professor Ferriol and other witnesses, including Andy Nacal of Benesch Friedlander (chair of the Ohio State Bar Association banking and bankruptcy committee), described transition rules that allow existing secured creditors to \"reperfect\" under the new framework within a short period after enactment to protect prior perfection. Ferriol also noted that about two dozen states had enacted the model to date.

Committee members raised concerns about cybersecurity risks, evolving technology and the mechanics of perfection and control. Representative Thunberg asked about security and misuse; Andy Nacal said the bill is not a regulatory cybersecurity measure but provides certainty for lenders and purchasers. Questions about existing creditors and transition protections prompted witnesses to describe filing and control options under the draft law.

No committee vote was taken; the hearing recorded proponent testimony and technical questioning. Witnesses urged technical precision in choice‑of‑law and transition rules and said the drafting aims to be technology‑neutral to accommodate future developments.","Lawyers and industry representatives told the judiciary committee that House Bill 195 would add a new UCC article to address transfer and secured‑transaction rules for digital assets, create transition rules for existing rights, and use a choice‑of‑law default tied to the District of Columbia.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6144497,"Bill would require employers to report suspected sexual assault of minor employees, sponsor says",144,425000,569000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5534068-b5e14a5f6c19a24dc3e45c61602bcfa9&start=425&end=569","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5534068-b5e14a5f6c19a24dc3e45c61602bcfa9/thumbnail_425000.jpg","/articles/6144497/Ohio/Bill-would-require-employers-to-report-suspected-sexual-assault-of-minor-employees-sponsor-says","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6144497-1341e6c8110eafa602744186ae3dae51/orig.mp4?Expires=1775036006&Signature=Chhrc0EPHoW3T4Cy3GZgqo-RL09Dj7VcC7wqEPHJ2mMRt4WpiFK7Za27k345FicRnf97XEWXygLH8nK553OLgylNLtl~Pb6Ctep9wHAeW-Z8hDaNHFAIZk52CxGXOS1FaZmNdluJ-A4sBEUJ0GL5SxGDJ0c2OnUjyMX9Yw~MWYgN71TXfJ5~YutvwwLabRHOPWw5RGxcDXxppuz-ALFhWoxzJq5-DG1MD4TRmwoCY4Txx3ANqnINPZo1M11hYOqzhCW0M~VZAgOzj3i~T3L4~W3I9nA0x~wIy3UZ0AjNIY8qM8O7w8HrGK0zlTVTf6zVQEs4Uia0SSwuaQFOiiTJ2A__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Lorenz, sponsor of House Bill 323, told the House Judiciary Committee that the bill would require employers to report suspected sexual assault involving minor employees to appropriate authorities, similar to other mandated reporters under Ohio law.

\"House bill 323 would require employers in Ohio to report suspected [sexual] assault involving minor employees to the appropriate authorities,\" Representative Lorenz said. \"Specifically, it amends sections of the revised code to ensure that when an employer has a reasonable cause to suspect that a minor in their employment has been [sexually] assaulted, they are legally obligated to report it just as teachers, doctors, and other mandated reporters already are under Ohio law.\"

Lorenz emphasized that the bill is not intended to impose undue burdens on responsible employers but to make clear that adults in positions of authority in the workplace must act on reasonable suspicions. \"This bill is not about adding red tape... It's about ensuring that adults in position of authority, including those in the workplace, take action when something is clearly wrong,\" Lorenz said.

During questioning, Representative Williams asked whether the sponsor would consider expanding mandatory‑reporter duties beyond employers to \"anyone that has knowledge or reasonable belief that a child has been [sexually] assaulted, abused, neglected,\" noting other states have broader language. Lorenz said she would be open to further dialogue and future amendments on that point.

The committee recorded this as a first hearing with sponsor testimony; no vote or amendment was taken at the hearing.","Representative Lorenz told the Judiciary Committee that House Bill 323 would make employers mandatory reporters of suspected sexual assault of minor employees, aligning workplace reporters with other mandated reporters under Ohio law.",{"_33":101,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":102,"_41":103,"_43":104,"_45":105,"_47":106,"_49":107,"_51":108,"_53":109,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":110,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":111,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6144502,"Sponsor says HB 296 would pause court fines and fees for 180 days after release to aid reentry",200,151000,351000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5534068-b5e14a5f6c19a24dc3e45c61602bcfa9&start=151&end=351","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5534068-b5e14a5f6c19a24dc3e45c61602bcfa9/thumbnail_151000.jpg","/articles/6144502/Ohio/Sponsor-says-HB-296-would-pause-court-fines-and-fees-for-180-days-after-release-to-aid-reentry","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6144502-53899dbd52b82161e87b72597a6c74bb/orig.mp4?Expires=1775036006&Signature=HEpLp0HoL8-i36kao3o8qvrFNqzQMB1HcscLkWQKKi7sYDgGwSelg7uO8UtWrQnFPF~rvLPD810qi755nCxjIiww5HA6rLpoHFYhairdJUAUE7i7JlJC4qNYpV8lB8S~TFht6jeZdFlmivQ-VgckVwr-m4oLzyOH6WbKsqOcWJq89stmnyEd5G6WN8s0YbWRNjs7YWn0cMHL66nGACNqTCY5LaoPtf1ZidLfbxZLeKAZvzCfW63miL2RSExpE~5vE4R5~MBn-5cz-TzUw6yHOKOlyJcgZfNRjymP9nUEs~iAyHiLu8h8snSHi19S2IKc5FQd~s4Y3-m7yj1lcOEGtw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Melanie Miller, sponsor of House Bill 296, told the Ohio House Judiciary Committee that the bill would establish a 180‑day grace period for court‑assessed fines and fees owed by people immediately after release from incarceration.

\"This legislation establishes a 180 day or about a 6 month grace period for outstanding court assessed fines or fees owed by incarcerated Ohioans when they immediately exit prison,\" Representative Melanie Miller said in sponsor testimony. She added, \"I wanna be clear about 1 thing in this bill. It does not forgive debt. It does not change the amount owed, and this does not apply to restitution.\"

Miller described the pause as a short window intended to let returning citizens focus on finding work, housing and reestablishing family connections without immediate payment obligations. \"No payments would be required for fines, fees, financial sanctions, or court costs related to criminal proceedings during this pause,\" she said. Miller noted that Alabama, Oklahoma and Tennessee already offer a similar 180‑day grace period.

During questioning, Representative Mohammed asked whether the bill would apply to court‑ordered programs that carry costs — for example, community service or drug treatment programs that require transportation. Miller replied, \"I will get back to you on that. I don't wanna speak offhand... but I wanna verify that for you and I can get back to you.\" No amendment or committee vote was recorded at the hearing; this was a first hearing with sponsor testimony.

The bill, as described at the hearing, would not forgive or reduce the underlying fines and fees and would exclude restitution. Representative Miller said the intent is to reduce barriers to reentry during the early months after incarceration.

If the committee pursues the measure, members requested clarification on whether costs tied to court‑ordered programs are included within the pause; the sponsor said she would verify and follow up.","Representative Melanie Miller told the House Judiciary Committee that House Bill 296 would create a 180‑day grace period for court‑assessed fines and fees (excluding restitution) owed by people immediately after release from incarceration, allowing time to seek housing and employment.",{"_33":113,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":114,"_41":115,"_43":116,"_45":117,"_47":118,"_49":119,"_51":120,"_53":121,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":122,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":123,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6144507,"Judiciary Committee favorably reports House Bill 168, asks LSC to harmonize substitute",86,52000,138000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5534068-b5e14a5f6c19a24dc3e45c61602bcfa9&start=52&end=138","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5534068-b5e14a5f6c19a24dc3e45c61602bcfa9/thumbnail_52000.jpg","/articles/6144507/Ohio/Judiciary-Committee-favorably-reports-House-Bill-168-asks-LSC-to-harmonize-substitute","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6144507-f1da6f30bcd94b35f658d4a5b0212d15/orig.mp4?Expires=1775036006&Signature=FYeC7f4mfvy-68klQ2qWtWU0JPHkbpGcdZNYqEUPFpMD6EVTMMVvkjwmCtcTY46sPWxtEs5w3ftc62Cn8UxJ-t78fdaK9Dy1Rrrvq4X7t7Z~IUUYomPp7P-WSRQvsRb8UiOMkdwembGPLJSNWyMenvfWHIXnAGwcEol0cBNI4~asewvJM-5Avzxqi5KCy00SF7KjBLFg0cToiqzXMWQ6w6hrvhHxvow6jC3AAYz7877qw6ai~Xyp1vOt~8JttyDAYxD89LgAm6s4fzXKuoJZD21uXa5ZUXfor5WR4BD9A-C-uXXgbOFHsXsWT055vcnMqiOxXmntvmkAL3JskLSdqQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Ohio House Judiciary Committee on Oct. 11 favorably reported House Bill 168 during its fifth hearing and asked the Legislative Service Commission to harmonize the measure as a substitute.

The committee took the procedural action after Vice Chair Swearingen moved to “favorably report House Bill 168 out of committee and recommend its passage.” Chair Thomas then called the roll and members recorded their votes.

The motion to favorably report was made by Vice Chair Swearingen. After roll call voting by members present — including Chairman Thomas, Vice Chair Swearingen and Ranking Member Isaacson — Chair Thomas announced that the bill was “favorably reported” and that the roll would remain open until noon the same day.

The committee did not debate the substance of the bill during the recorded motion; the chair also requested that Legislative Service Commission harmonize the measure as a substitute, a drafting step that aligns competing language into a single bill for floor consideration.

No amendments or formal conditions were recorded on the motion at the hearing. The committee’s action was procedural: it forwarded the bill with a recommendation of passage and asked LSC to prepare a harmonized substitute before further consideration.

With the roll left open until noon, additional votes could be added to the committee record before that deadline. The committee adjourned other business after concluding the fifth and final hearing for House Bill 168.","The Ohio House Judiciary Committee voted to favorably report House Bill 168 at its fifth hearing and asked the Legislative Service Commission to harmonize the bill as a substitute; the roll will remain open until noon.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Supreme Court supports bill to repeal statutes that conflict with court rules; committee to review list

Panel hears proponent testimony on UCC modernization bill for digital assets (House Bill 195)

Bill would require employers to report suspected sexual assault of minor employees, sponsor says

Sponsor says HB 296 would pause court fines and fees for 180 days after release to aid reentry

Judiciary Committee favorably reports House Bill 168, asks LSC to harmonize substitute