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 need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT