Terre Haute federal courthouse escapes closure

September 12, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Judicial Conference of the United States announced Tuesday that it will close six non-resident federal courthouses to save money. The facility in Terre Haute, which was placed on a list for consideration of closure earlier this year, will remain open.

The Terre Haute courthouse is no stranger to threats of closure.  Judicial officials looked at 60 federal courthouses around the country which, like the Terre Haute courthouse, do not have a full-time resident judge.

The six facilities closing are in Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Texas. The closures should save the judiciary around $1 million a year in rent, according to a news release from the United States Courts.

The Terre Haute facility – which opened in 2009 – was number 19 on the list.

In addition to announcing the court closures, the U.S. Judicial Conference has asked each District Court unit – clerk’s office, probation office, pretrial services office and bankruptcy court – to work together to adopt a shared administrative services plan to save money while preserving effective court operations and services.

The conference also decided to eliminate funding to print and mail court of appeals slip opinions – court opinions used prior to formal publication in case reporters. This is projected to save more than $1 million in printing and mailing costs. Courts will now provide electronic copies of slip opinions.
 
 

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
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT