Legal Opinion
Armour v. City of Indianapolis
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided June 4, 2012No. 11-161PublishedCited by 241 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Breyer
■ For many years, an Indiana statute, the “Barrett Law,” authorized Indiana’s cities to impose upon benefited lot own*676.ers the cost of sewer improvement projects. The Barrett Law also permitted those lot owners to pay either immediately in the form of a lump sum or over time in installments. In 2005, the city of Indianapolis (Indianapolis or City) adopted a new assessment and payment method, the “STEP” plan, and it forgave any Barrett Law installments that lot owners had not yet paid.
A group of lot owners who had already paid their entire Barrett Law assessment in a lump sum believe that the…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Heller v. Doe Ex Rel. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- City of New Orleans v. DukesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1911
- Nordlinger v. HahnSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by241 opinions
- Spavone v. New York State Department of Correctional ServicesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2013
- Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health OrganizationSupreme Court of the United States · 2022
- Douglas Fauconier v. Harold ClarkeCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2020
- Valenti v. LawsonCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2018
- Texas Democratic Party v. Greg Abbott, GoveCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2020
236 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.