Londoner v. City and County of Denver facts for kids
Quick facts for kids Londoner v. City and County of Denver |
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued March 6, 9, 1908 Decided June 1, 1908 |
|
| Full case name | Wolfe Londoner and Dennis Sheedy, Plaintiffs in Error v. City and County of Denver, as Successor to the City of Denver, et al.' |
| Citations | 210 U.S. 373 (more)
28 S. Ct. 708; 52 L. Ed. 1103; 1908 U.S. LEXIS 1517
|
| Prior history | Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado |
| Holding | |
| Where the legislature of a state, instead of fixing a tax, commits to some subordinate body the duty of determining whether, in what amount, and upon whom it shall be levied, and of making its assessment and apportionment, due process of law requires that, at some stage of the proceedings, before the tax becomes irrevocably fixed, the taxpayer shall have an opportunity to be heard, of which he must have notice. | |
| Court membership | |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Moody, joined by Harlan, Brewer, White, Peckham, McKenna, Day |
| Dissent | Fuller |
| Dissent | Holmes |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
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.
Legal principles
Due process protections attach to government agency activities that are adjudicative in nature, but not to activities that are legislative in nature.
Facts and procedural posture
The provisions of the Denver (Defendant) city charter confer upon the city the power to make local improvements and to assess the cost upon property specially benefited. Londoner (Plaintiff) was provided with notice of the assessment, but there was no opportunity for a hearing, the notice only fixed a deadline for the filing of complaints and objection. Londoner brought suit against the city challenging the assessment of a tax for the cost of paving the street abutting his property on the grounds that he was denied due process of law.
Issue
Where a tax is to be assessed upon property owners, do those affected by the tax have the right to argue their side and support their allegations by proof?
