United States Supreme Court

Reset A A Font size: Print

Armour v. Indianapolis, 11-161

In an Equal Protection action brought by homeowners to obtain a refund of money paid to a city to fund a public works sewer project after the city changed its method of financing the project, the Indiana Supreme Court's holding -- that the city's distinction between those who had already paid and those who had not was rationally related to its legitimate interests in reducing administrative costs, providing financial hardship relief to homeowners, transitioning from the Barrett Law system to STEP, and preserving its limited resources -- is affirmed where the city had a rational basis for its distinction and thus did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Appellate Information

  • Decided 06/04/2012
  • Published 06/04/2012


  • Breyer


  • United States Supreme Court


Copied to clipboard