City of Indianapolis v. Cox - 7/1/14

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Tuesday  July 1, 2014 
10:00 AM  EST

10 a.m. 49A02-1309-PL-792. In 2005, Appellant City of Indianapolis changed the program through which it required homes that had previously used septic systems to connect to the City's sanitary sewers. Specifically, the city ended its previous "Barrett Law" for funding that work, forgave all outstanding debt under the program, and enacted a different financing program. Appellees Owen Cox, Jr. and Evelyn Cox had paid to have their home connected to the sewers under the Barrett Law system, and they claimed they were being treated unfairly in comparison to those homeowners who had opted to pay for the sewer connection via an installment plan and then had their debt forgiven. They sued the City on behalf of a proposed class. After the Coxes' federal constitutional claims were resolved by a companion case, the case was remanded back to the trial court. That court determined that the manner in which the City changed the program violated Indiana law and ordered the City to pay damages and prejudgment interest to the Coxes and the class. On appeal, the City argues that the Coxes' state-law claims are barred, that the City did not violate Indiana law, and that the Coxes are not entitled to prejudgment interest.

Back to Events
Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT