Preview:

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS Jonathan L. Mayes Chief Litigation Counsel Justin F. Roebel Assistant Corporation Counsel Office of Corporation Counsel Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR AMICI CURIAE INDIANA ASSOCIATION OF CITIES AND TOWNS AND INDIANA MUNICIPAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION Thomas E. Wheeler Anthony W. Overholt Jo Angela Woods Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES Ronald J. Waicukauski R. Davy Eaglesfield, III Jana K. Strain Indianapolis, Indiana

______________________________________________________________________________

Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________ No. 49S02-1007-CV-402 CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, ET AL.,

In the

FILED
May 10 2011, 9:28 am
of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court

CLERK

Appellants (Defendants below), v. CHRISTINE ARMOUR, ET AL., Appellees (Plaintiffs below). _________________________________ Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, No. 49D11-0706-CT-026050 The Honorable John F. Hanley, Judge _________________________________ On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A02-0901-CV-84 _________________________________ May 10, 2011 Sullivan, Justice.

The City of Indianapolis abandoned the Barrett Law method of financing sewer improvements in favor of a new system that imposes less of a financial burden on property owners. To ease the transition, the City discharged all outstanding Barrett Law assessments owing as of November 1, 2005, but did not give refunds to those property owners who had previously paid

their Barrett Law assessments in full or in part. We hold that the City did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because forgiving only the outstanding assessment balances was rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. Background Indianas Barrett Law1 authorizes municipalities to provide or require public improvements and fund those improvements by levying special assessments against the benefitted properties. Town Council of New Harmony v. Parker, 726 N.E.2d 1217, 1227 n.13 (Ind. 2000) (quoting Porter v. City of Tipton, 141 Ind. 347, 40 N.E. 802, 803 (1895)). The costs of Barrett Law projects are generally "apportioned equally among all abutting lands or lots" benefitted by the improvement. I.C.

Download City of Indianapolis, et al. v. Christine Armour, et al..pdf

Indiana Law