Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Martin v. City of Indianapolis

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
192 F.3d 608 (1999)


Facts

Jan Martin (plaintiff) studied art at Purdue University, the Art Institute of Chicago, and Bowling Green State University. Martin had completed several works of art that were displayed in museums and private collections. Martin was employed by Tarpenning-LaFollette Company (Tarpenning), where he learned metal fabrication. Tarpenning commissioned Martin to construct a metal sculpture on its land, which was approved by the Indianapolis Metropolitan Development Commission. Martin finished the 20-foot-by-40-foot sculpture, which he named Symphony #1, in two years. Martin designed Symphony #1 so that the sculpture would be easy to disassemble in the event the sculpture had to be moved, a fact that Martin told the City of Indianapolis (the city) when it purchased Tarpenning’s land. Martin offered to remove the sculpture several times, but the city ultimately demolished the sculpture without providing notice to Martin of its intentions. Martin sued the city under the Visual Artists Rights Act of 1990 (VARA). Martin presented several pieces of evidence regarding the merit and esteem the work had achieved in the community, including a letter to Tarpenning from the director of an art school and some newspaper and magazine articles. The district court granted summary judgment for Martin, finding that the letter and articles did not constitute hearsay and were thus admissible as evidence. The city appealed, and Martin cross-appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Wood, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence/Dissent (Manion, J.)

The concurrence/dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the judge’s concurrence in part and dissent in part.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 221,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.