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. Based on several recent Indy Star articles, I would agree that being a case worker would be really hard. You would see the worst of humanity on a daily basis; and when things go wrong guess who gets blamed??!! Not biological parent!! Best of luck to those who entered that line of work.

  2. I was looking through some of your blog posts on this internet site and I conceive this web site is rattling informative ! Keep on posting . dfkcfdkdgbekdffe

  3. Don't believe me, listen to Pacino: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6bC9w9cH-M

  4. Law school is social control the goal to produce a social product. As such it began after the Revolution and has nearly ruined us to this day: "“Scarcely any political question arises in the United States which is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question. Hence all parties are obliged to borrow, in their daily controversies, the ideas, and even the language, peculiar to judicial proceedings. As most public men [i.e., politicians] are, or have been, legal practitioners, they introduce the customs and technicalities of their profession into the management of public affairs. The jury extends this habitude to all classes. The language of the law thus becomes, in some measure, a vulgar tongue; the spirit of the law, which is produced in the schools and courts of justice, gradually penetrates beyond their walls into the bosom of society, where it descends to the lowest classes, so that at last the whole people contract the habits and the tastes of the judicial magistrate.” ? Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

  5. Attorney? Really? Or is it former attorney? Status with the Ind St Ct? Status with federal court, with SCOTUS? This is a legal newspaper, or should I look elsewhere?

ADVERTISEMENT