ILNews

Many courts shut down due to weather

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Several courts around the state are closed today after heavy snow and ice hit Indiana this week. The weather has even caused the Indiana General Assembly to postpone hearings for a second day.

The Indiana Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and related agencies, including the clerk’s office, are closed today. The courts, which have rarely closed over the years, are scheduled to open at 8:30 a.m. Thursday.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago is closed today as are all of the federal courthouses in the Northern District of Indiana. The Indianapolis Division in the Southern District of Indiana is scheduled to open at 10:30 a.m.

The Marion Superior and Circuit courts and the Marion County clerk’s office are also closed today. Courts in Mishawaka and St. Joseph counties are closed.

Several city and town courts are closed – Anderson City Court, Edgewood and Pendleton Town courts in Madison County – as well as Franklin Township Small Claims Court in Marion County. The 7 p.m. court session in Franklin City Court in Johnson County has been cancelled. The courthouses in Boone, Cass, Clay, Hancock, Henry, Parke, Putnam, Sullivan, and Tipton counties are closed.

The Indiana Senate has rescheduled committee meetings that were set for today, including the Senate Judiciary Committee. The Indiana House of Representatives has also cancelled committee hearings. Both chambers are closed for a second day. A make-up session day may be held Feb. 11.

Many law firms have asked attorneys to work remotely or have instituted a delay in coming into the office.
 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  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