ILNews

Terre Haute federal courthouse opens Monday

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

After years of debate as to whether Terre Haute would keep a U.S. District Court, a new federal courthouse is set to open Aug. 24.

Construction began on the 14,000 square-foot building last summer that will house the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District, clerks' offices for both courts, and the U.S Probation Office. The U.S. Attorney's Office and U.S. Marshals Service will also have space within the building.

The new building was needed because the current federal building no longer met the security requirements for federal buildings. The courts also shared space with the U.S. Post Office, which wanted more space for postal operations. USPS made the decision to stop leasing space in the federal building in 2000, forcing the courts to look for alternative locations.

In September 2005, a decision was made to close the District Court in Terre Haute, but less than a year later, the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts in Washington, D.C., confirmed that the location would remain open.

The current federal building will be converted by Indiana State University for its School of Business. The new courthouse will incorporate furniture and features from the current courthouse.

The Terre Haute Division will have limited operations Friday as the move is made to 921 Ohio St. in Terre Haute. Starting Aug. 24, phone numbers will change to:

- U.S. District Court Clerk's Office: (812) 231-1840

- U.S. Bankruptcy Court Clerk's Office (812) 231-1850

- U.S. District and Bankruptcy Court Fax: (812) 231-1844

- U.S. Probation Office: (812) 231-1855

ADVERTISEMENT

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