Londoner v. City and County of Denver
210 U.S. 373 (1908)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a state legislature delegates the duty of assessing a tax to a subordinate body, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the taxpayer be afforded an opportunity for a hearing with notice before the tax becomes final, and this hearing must include the right to support one's allegations with argument and proof, not merely the right to submit written objections.
Facts:
- The City of Denver initiated a project to pave Eighth Avenue, with the cost to be assessed against the properties abutting the street.
- Wolfe Londoner and others owned property that would be subject to this special tax assessment.
- The city charter allowed the City Council to determine conclusively that all preliminary steps, including obtaining a petition from a majority of landowners, had been properly completed.
- After the paving was completed, the Board of Public Works apportioned the cost among the landowners.
- A city clerk published a notice informing landowners they had thirty days to file written complaints or objections, which would be 'heard and determined' by the City Council before the assessment was finalized.
- Londoner and other property owners filed a detailed written complaint objecting to the proposed assessment on numerous grounds.
- The Denver City Council, without providing further notice or an opportunity for the landowners to be heard, met and adopted a resolution confirming the tax apportionment.
- Subsequently, the City Council passed an ordinance formally assessing the paving tax against Londoner's and the other plaintiffs' properties.
Procedural Posture:
- Wolfe Londoner and other landowners initiated a legal proceeding in a Colorado state trial court to invalidate a tax assessment.
- The trial court granted the relief sought by the landowners.
- The City of Denver appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Colorado.
- The Supreme Court of Colorado reversed the trial court's judgment, ruling in favor of the City of Denver.
- Londoner and the other landowners (plaintiffs in error) obtained a writ of error from the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of the Supreme Court of Colorado.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment require that a taxpayer, subject to a special assessment for a local improvement imposed by a municipal body, be given an opportunity for a hearing where they can support their written objections with argument and proof, beyond merely submitting them in writing?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Moody
Yes. When a subordinate body determines a tax assessment, due process of law requires that the taxpayer be afforded an opportunity to be heard, which includes the right to present arguments and evidence, not merely the right to file written objections. The court distinguished between legislative-type decisions (like creating a taxing district), which do not require a hearing for each individual, and adjudicative-type decisions (like assessing a specific tax upon an individual property), which do. While many formalities of a judicial proceeding can be dispensed with, a hearing's 'very essence demands that he who is entitled to it shall have the right to support his allegations by argument however brief, and, if need be, by proof, however informal.' Because the Denver City Council denied the landowners any opportunity to be heard on their timely and specific written objections before making the assessment final, the process violated the Fourteenth Amendment and the resulting tax assessment was void.
Dissenting - The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Holmes
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Holmes dissent without a written opinion.
Analysis:
This case is a foundational decision in administrative law, clarifying the procedural requirements of the Due Process Clause. It establishes that when an administrative body makes individualized, adjudicative determinations, something more than a mere paper process is required. The decision draws a crucial line between general legislative acts and specific adjudicative acts, mandating a 'trial-type' hearing for the latter to ensure fairness. This precedent has significantly influenced the development of administrative procedure, requiring agencies to provide meaningful opportunities for stakeholders to be heard in matters that affect their property or liberty interests.
