Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
· 6/1/1908

Londoner v. City and County of Denver

Citations

  • 210 U.S. 373
  • 28 S. Ct. 708
  • 52 L. Ed. 1103
  • 1908 U.S. LEXIS 1517

Syllabus

<p>The legislature of a State may authorize municipal improvements without any petition of landowners to be assessed therefor, and proceedings of a municipality in accordance with charter provisions and without hearings authorizing an improvement do not deny due process of law to landowners who are afforded a hearing upon the assessment itself.</p> <p>The decision of a state court that a city council properly determined that the board of public works had acted within its jurisdiction under the city charter does not involve a Federal question reviewable by this court.</p> <p>Where the state court has construed a state statute so as to bring it into harmony with the Federal and state constitutions, nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment gives this court power to review the decision on the ground that the state court exercised legislative power in construing the ' statute in that manner and thereby violated that Amendment.</p> <p>There are few constitutional restrictions on the power of the States to assess, apportion and collect taxes, and in the enforcement of such restrictions this court has regard to substance and not form, but where the legislature commits the determination of the tax to a subordinate body, due process of law requires- that the taxpayer be afforded a hearing of which he must have notice, and this requirement is not satisfied by the mere right to file objections; and where, as in Colorado, the taxpayer has no right to object to an assessment in court, due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment requires that he have the opportunity to support his objections by. argument and proof at some time and place.</p> <p>The denial of due process of law by municipal authorities while acting as a board of equalization amounts to a denial by the State.</p> <p>33 Colorado, 104, reversed.</p>

About this case

Londoner v. City and County of Denver

Londoner v. City and County of Denver, 210 U.S. 373 (1908), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that due process rights under the U.S. Constitution attach to administrative agency hearings that involve adjudication , but not to those that involve legislation .

Contents

Legal principles

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Londoner_v._City_and_County_of_Denver&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Legal principles")

Due process protections attach to government agency activities that are adjudicative in nature, but not to activities that are legislative in nature.

Analysis

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Londoner_v._City_and_County_of_Denver&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Analysis")

The due process protections of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution require a hearing and opportunity to be heard whenever the government wishes to violate a citizen's life , liberty , or property . Due process rights attach to governmental activities that are adjudicative in nature, but not to activities that are legislative in nature. In the context of taxation, a legislative body has the power to tax without affording citizens due process protections. However, when the decision to tax particular individuals is made by a non-legislative body based on the individual facts and circumstances of a particular case, the decision becomes adjudicative in nature, and due process protections attach. These due process protections do not require a full trial, but the mere opportunity to file a written statement is insufficient. Due process in this context requires at least an opportunity to be heard in person and present evidence. No such opportunity was given. Therefore, the action violated due process, and the liens were void.

This case established that, where complaints are particularized and specific facts are at issue, adjudication is preferable since it is within a judge's expertise to resolve matters involving personal rights; when there is a general grievance bearing on future policies, rulemaking is preferable because the expertise and familiarity of an agency within its field helps to inform them on such decisions.

Here, the law of Colorado denied landowners post-deprivation hearings, the right to be heard after an assessment of taxes had been made. Thus, the right to a pre-deprivation hearing, allowing landowners to be heard prior to the assessment of taxes, was the only way in which the landowners could challenge the Government's actions depriving them of property.

See also

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Londoner_v._City_and_County_of_Denver&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: See also")

External links

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Londoner_v._City_and_County_of_Denver&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: External links")

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Londoner_v._City_and_County_of_Denver&oldid=1351938309 "

Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that board's application of legislatively-mandated standard for special benefits assessment to particular cases was subject to requirements of procedural due process
  • holding that board’s application of legislatively-mandated standard for special benefits assessment to particular cases was subject to requirements of procedural due process
  • holding that board's application of legislatively-mandated standard for tax assessment to particular case was subject to the requirements of procedural due process
  • holding that board's application of legislatively-mandated standard for tax assessment to particular case was subject to the requirements of procedural due process
  • holding that a small number of people who were disproportionately affected by a tax were entitled to a hearing before that tax was enacted
  • holding that a disposition is sufficiently adjudicative to require procedural due process protections if it results in an “irrevocably fixed” outcome

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Moody, Holmes

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.