Armour v. City of Indianapolis
United States Supreme Court
132 S. Ct. 2073, 566 U.S. 673 (2012)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
An Indiana statute known as the Barrett Law authorized cities in Indiana to charge owners of property benefited by sewer-improvement projects for those improvements. These charges could be fully paid or paid in installments over time. The City of Indianapolis (defendant) changed its assessment and payment method to the Septic Tank Elimination Program (STEP) plan in 2005. As part of this change, Indianapolis forgave any Barrett Law charges that had not been paid yet. Continuing to collect money due under the old Barrett Law system after switching to the STEP plan could have been complex and costly. However, Indianapolis did not issue any refunds to owners that had already fully paid for the improvements. Thirty-eight homeowners (plaintiffs) who had fully paid off the sewer improvements sought refunds equal to the smallest Barrett Law debt forgiven, which was $8,062. Indianapolis denied the request, and the homeowners sued, alleging a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the homeowners, and the state appeals court affirmed. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Breyer, J.)
Dissent (Roberts, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
