Investment Company v. State Board of Equalization, BI-METALLIC
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Holmes |
| Citation | 239 U.S. 441,60 L.Ed. 372,36 S.Ct. 141 |
| Parties | INVESTMENT COMPANY, Plff, in Err., v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, and Elias M. Ammons, James B. Pearee, M. A. Leddy, Roady Kenehan, and Fred Farrar, as Members, etc., et al |
| Docket Number | BI-METALLIC,No. 116 |
| Decision Date | 20 December 1915 |
v.
STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, and Elias M. Ammons, James B. Pearee, M. A. Leddy, Roady Kenehan, and Fred Farrar, as Members, etc., et al.
Page 442
Mr. Horace Phelps for plaintiff in error.
[Argument of Counsel from page 442 intentionally omitted]
Page 443
Mr. Fred Farrar, Attorney General of Colorado, and Messrs. Norton Montgomery, James A. Marsh, and George Q. Richmond for defendants in error.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:
This is a suit to enjoin the State Board of Equalization and the Colorado Tax Commission from putting in force and the defendant Pitcher, as assessor of Denver, from obeying, an order of the boards, increasing the valuation of all taxable property in Denver 40 per cent. The order
Page 444
was sustained and the suit directed to be dismissed by the supreme court of the state. 56 Colo. 512, 138 Pac. 1010. See 56 Colo. 343, 138 Pac. 509. The plaintiff is the owner of real estate in Denver, and brings the case here on the ground that it was given no opportunity to be heard, and that therefore its property will be taken without due process of law, contrary to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. That is the only question with which we have to deal. There are suggestions on the one side that the construction of the state Constitution and laws was an unwarranted surprise, and on the other, that the decision might have been placed, although it was not, on the ground that there was an adequate remedy at law. With these suggestions we have nothing to do. They are matters purely of state law. The answer to the former needs no amplification; that to the latter is that the allowance of equitable relief is a question of state policy, and that as the supreme court of the state treated the merits as legitimately before it, we are not to speculate whether it might or might not have thrown out the suit upon the preliminary ground.
For the purposes of decision we assume that the constitutional question is presented in the baldest way,—that neither the plaintiff nor the assessor of Denver, who presents a brief on the plaintiff's side, nor any representative of the city and county, was given an opportunity to be heard, other than such as they may have had by reason of the fact that the time of meeting of the boards is fixed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson Court Condominiums v. City of New Orleans, Civ. A. No. 84-3466.
...enactment are not subject to the procedural requirements of due process. Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Board of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441, 36 S.Ct. 141, 60 L.Ed.2d 372 (1915); United States v. LULAC, 793 F.2d 636 (5th Cir.1986); Nolan v. Ramsey, 597 F.2d 577 (5th Cir.1979); Q.C. Cons......
-
Sea Girt Restaurant v. Borough of Sea Girt, Civ. A. No. 85-5360.
...not constitutionally required safeguards of legislative action." Id.; see also Bi-Metallic Investment Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441, 445, 36 S.Ct. 141, 142, 60 L.Ed. 372 (1915); Rogin v. Bensalem Tp., 616 F.2d 680, 693 (3d Cir.1980). The Court found that the fact that the s......
-
Gann v. Richardson, No. 1:13–cv–00532–SEB–TAB.
...by a state must therefore seek redress through the legislative process rather than the courts. See Bi–Metallic Inv. Co. v. Colorado, 239 U.S. 441, 445, 36 S.Ct. 141, 60 L.Ed. 372 (1915); Brown v. McGarr, 774 F.2d 777, 784 (7th Cir.1985). Plaintiffs' factual allegations are not in dispute. E......
-
San Diego Bldg. Contractors Assn. v. City Council
...Wendell Holmes, writing for a unanimous United States Supreme Court in Bi-Metallic Co. v. State Board of Equalization of Colorado (1915) 239 U.S. 441, 145, 36 S.Ct. 141, 142, 60 L.Ed. 372, clearly articulated the due process principles that govern the instant case. Justice Holmes declared: ......
-
Gann v. Richardson, No. 1:13–cv–00532–SEB–TAB.
...by a state must therefore seek redress through the legislative process rather than the courts. See Bi–Metallic Inv. Co. v. Colorado, 239 U.S. 441, 445, 36 S.Ct. 141, 60 L.Ed. 372 (1915); Brown v. McGarr, 774 F.2d 777, 784 (7th Cir.1985). Plaintiffs' factual allegations are not in dispute. E......
-
San Diego Bldg. Contractors Assn. v. City Council
...Wendell Holmes, writing for a unanimous United States Supreme Court in Bi-Metallic Co. v. State Board of Equalization of Colorado (1915) 239 U.S. 441, 145, 36 S.Ct. 141, 142, 60 L.Ed. 372, clearly articulated the due process principles that govern the instant case. Justice Holmes declared: ......
-
Tomorrow v. City of S.F., A137753
...where a legislative act “exceptionally affected” a small number of people. (See Bi–Metallic Inv. Co. v. State Board of Equalization (1915) 239 U.S. 441, 446, 36 S.Ct. 141, 60 L.Ed. 372 (Bi–Metallic ) [distinguishing Londoner v. Denver (1908) 210 U.S. 373, 28 S.Ct. 708, 52 L.Ed. 1103, as inv......
-
Tomorrow v. City of S.F., A137753
...where a legislative act “exceptionally affected” a small number of people. (See Bi–Metallic Inv. Co. v. State Board of Equalization (1915) 239 U.S. 441, 446, 36 S.Ct. 141, 60 L.Ed. 372 (Bi–Metallic ) [distinguishing Londoner v. Denver (1908) 210 U.S. 373, 28 S.Ct. 708, 52 L.Ed. 1103, as inv......
-
Modern Vacancies, Ancient Remedy: How the De Facto Officer Doctrine Applies to Vacancies Act Violations (And How It Should).
...S. Ct. 929, 943-44 (2017). (247.) See supra notes 110-15 and accompanying text. (248.) Bi-Metallic Inv. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441, 445 (249.) See O'Connell, supra note 14; Mendelson, supra note 8, at 584. (250.) Brief for Cross-Respondents COFINA Senior Bondholders' Coa......
-
A WORKABLE SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS.
...omitted). (227) See, e.g., INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983). (228) See, e.g., Bi-Metallic Inv. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441, 445 (1915); see also Onyx Props. LLC v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, 838 F.3d 1039, 1046 (10th Cir. (229) The Tenth Circuit confronted this problem in Abd......
-
THE RIGHT TO PETITION AS ACCESS AND INFORMATION.
...Cir. 1967), cert, denied 391 U.S. 915 (1968))). (269) 465 U.S. 271 (1984). (270) Id. at 273. (271) Id. at 274. (272) Id. at 286-87. (273) 239 U.S. 441, 445 (1915) ("Where a rule of conduct applies to more than a few people it is impracticable that every one should have a direct voice in its......
-
THE REDISCOVERED STAGES OF AGENCY ADJUDICATION.
...general versus specific application and retrospective versus prospective effect. See Bi-Metallic Inv. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, 239 U.S. 441 (1915); Londoner v. City of Denver, 210 U.S. 373 (24.) See 5 U.S.C. [section]551(4). (25.) See 5 U.S.C. [section] 551 (6). Employing the same ......