Armour v. Indianapolis
Holding
Because the city had a rational basis for its distinction between homeowners who had paid their taxes in a lump sum and those who paid over time by installments, the city"s refusal to provide a refund to those who paid in a lump sum did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Judgment
Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Stephen G. Breyer on Jun 4, 2012. The Chief Justice filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Scalia and Alito joined.
Merits Briefs for the Petition
- Brief for Christine Armour
- Reply brief unavailable
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioner
Merits Briefs for the Respondent
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Respondents
- Brief for the the City/County Management Association et al.”
- Brief for the International Municipal Lawyers Association
[##CERT-STAGE##]
Recommended Citation: Armour v. Indianapolis, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/armour-v-indianapolis/